The Coddling of the American Mind

[Thanas]

Well, I would say that if you give a course on WAR then people who don't think there will be killing or rape....must be very sheltered.

[Balrog]

And as someone who has watched students of mine flip right the fuck out, I can say that your sample size of one means nothing in terms of my obligations as an instructor. Different people have different tolerances, and the fact that some people are douches who want to be treated like special snowflakes does not mean that it is not reasonable for me warn students before certain materials are covered.

It costs me exactly nothing to do so, and can help make it possible for people to actually learn in my classes.

If your students are "flipping out" about the type of mundane shit being taught in a classroom, then I seriously question their mental fortitude and ability to deal with a world which won't cater to their delicate sensibilities. If someone's tolerance for certain words, phrases or concepts is so low that even discussing it in an academic setting "triggers" them, it's a wonder how they expect to function in a society which isn't being as good-hearted as you.

I suppose if we want to start using anecdotes with a bit more weight to them (sorry all you perfectly healthy people), we could take the opinions of people with some expertise in the area:

In an interview about trigger warnings for The Daily Telegraph Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good".[14] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[15] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers. Frank Furedi, an emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, described trigger warnings as a form of narcissism, with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.[16]

Ah, but there's a difference between "do you favor censoring speech" and "do you favor censoring speech offensive to minorities?

You said:

"the recent Pew poll which showed 40% of Millennials were in support of the government banning "offensive" speech. "

You said "offensive." You did not say "offensive to minorities."

I suspect that a huge proportion of people who are now over 70 (that is, people born before 1946) are now or were at one time in favor of censoring speech. It's just that the speech they wanted to censor was speech offensive to the dominant culture of the era. Not speech offensive to blacks or sexually harassed women or gay people.

You're playing semantics and avoiding the heart of the matter Simon. "Offensive" speech should not be banned, period, end of discussion, no matter against whom that speech is directed. If someone is offending you, you are free to ignore them or confront them, even organize other like-minded people to do the same, but making it illegal and criminally punishable is wrong. Because as this very thread demonstrates, the definition of what is and isn't offensive is so nebulous and subjective, it renders any attempt to enforce such a law as either completely toothless or overly draconian.

Since a military veteran's PTSD is likely to be most heavily 'triggered' by things not commonly found in everyday society (e.g. gunfire and explosions), I would not be surprised if military veterans are less vulnerable IN everyday society than people who suffered from other traumas.

That's the type of stereotypical BS which is what makes me believe much of the underlying argument for "triggers warnings" is bullshit. On occasion something like watching a war movie can bring back memories from their time in the service, but often not, and more frequently it will be something completely random and unrelated. There's no way to guard against that by avoiding all "triggering" moments, and the same holds true for these students. Is it better for them to go through their formative years never having to confront something emotionally troubling or offensive, in a (relatively) safe environment like an academic setting, so that when they're out in the world at a dinner party or in a coffee shop or at the supermarket and are confronted by someone being rude or offensive or "triggering" they can "flip out" right then and there because they weren't adequately warned beforehand?

[the atom]

In fairness, I'm pretty sure you could find a large minority or even majority of people in many previous generations with similar attitudes.

They put the question to the other generations too, and the Millennials by far had the largest number who were in favor of this. Interestingly at the opposite end were the 70 and older types with a measly 12% support.

Your survey was specifically talking about statements that are offensive to minority groups. It's not even making the point you want to be making because it also shows that support for censoring that speech is lower among college students than it is to people with high school education only.

Your survey doesn't prove dick shit about older people being less open to censorship. If you asked that same age group about whether it's okay to censor violent media, explicit descriptions of sexuality on TV or coarse language, the percentage saying 'no' wouldn't exceed a rounding error.

If your students are "flipping out" about the type of mundane shit being taught in a classroom, then I seriously question their mental fortitude and ability to deal with a world which won't cater to their delicate sensibilities. If someone's tolerance for certain words, phrases or concepts is so low that even discussing it in an academic setting "triggers" them, it's a wonder how they expect to function in a society which isn't being as good-hearted as you.

'Fuck'
'Shit'
'Cunt'
'Asshole'
'Motherfucker'

These are all fairly mundane words that nevertheless are likely to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction from a lot of people. Surprisingly we don't consider these people unfit for participation in society.

[Dragon Angel]

It's interesting how things like these are overexaggerated. Yes, there are certain groups of activists who take these too far to the point of outright bullying, but the people who take the very concept of trigger warnings' and microaggressions' existences to mean "these subjects will be outright banned from the curriculum" is just as much, if not higher. Two extremes, really, and people would be advised to try not falling into them.

It isn't the intent of these to ban subjects from ever being taught or give students "easy" ways to avoid keeping up with their classes. Their intent has been to a. maximize learning in educational environments by giving proper warning to prepare for content that could possibly produce intense anxiety, and b. minimize shit that people with these anxieties, including marginalized groups, already deal with on a daily basis from the "outside world".

On b.: There is an assumption that is never addressed that people with these anxieties aren't "being prepared for the outside world". What makes you believe they don't already deal with these anxieties in the outside world? The outside world ... prepares someone very much for life in the outside world, already. Lines of text describing content may cause anxious reactions won't hinder that, I assure you. Just using my own experiences as an example, I'm already pretty prepared for people demeaning women in various ways, saying that trans women are not "REAL women", calling me a lazy good-for-nothing despite chronic pain and exhaustion, and calling me a serial killer because I happen to have a psychotic disorder. I'm even ready for people casually saying these in any professional environment. It doesn't mean I would tolerate these happening around me, nor does it mean I expect people to have the same level of fortitude I've built over the years.

It's "internet tough guy"-ism taken to real life to expect people to casually deal with negativity in their professional learning environments--where they may have already dealt with this same sort of negativity throughout their entire lives on a constant, never-ending basis--without a single complaint. This is literally the definition of privilege.

"Offensive" speech should not be banned, period, end of discussion, no matter against whom that speech is directed. If someone is offending you, you are free to ignore them or confront them, even organize other like-minded people to do the same, but making it illegal and criminally punishable is wrong. Because as this very thread demonstrates, the definition of what is and isn't offensive is so nebulous and subjective, it renders any attempt to enforce such a law as either completely toothless or overly draconian.

There are certain words I'm pretty sure people would agree with: N*gg*r. Tr*nny. F*gg*t. Sh*m*l*. Also, other slurs that are occasionally shouted preceding the death of a marginalized individual in a hate crime. If not in public venues, then private venues like learning institutions should most definitely consider banning these. Because let's be serious here, where is the utility in permitting casual use of them outside of demonstrative examples? (which would, of course, be warned about prior to the course)

[Zixinus]

This is because I used the metaphorical "you" as opposed to the literal one. As in I was not directly directed at you, Zixinus but the metaphorical "you people who say and repeat these things". I thought that much was obvious from the context.

Your ability to establish context is incredibly shitty then, your tone is highly accusatory because you do not establish distance from me and your subject group.

I happen to have family members in parasitology.

So do I. I even got a book from him. We even dissected a fish.

And it is something that absolutely needs to be said because it absolutely happens to people and you absolutely might one day have to take someones eye out because of it.

You are again conflicting "giving a warning" with "deciding not to teach it at all". I am in favor of the former but not the latter. Just because the article is trying to conflate the two with quote-mining a few idiots, doesn't mean they are necessarily connected at all. A warning only takes a sentence or two before a lecture and places responsibility on the student.

But do you think it is smart to go into a field that you know is potentially traumatic to you in the hopes that you'll grow out of it?

Why do you think some people chose the subject in the first place? Again, Alyrium Denryle gives a good example with his sub-Saharan students who want to study the field and subject precisely because it impacted their lives. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't? Because what you are suggesting is that they should shelter themselves from subject and never expose themselves to it.

Another case is the example that Alyrium brings up is someone that got raped while they are doing their studies. Should they abandon their carrier, resources and time already spent because of it, to give up because some asshole couldn't buy a fleshlight? Or should they instead try to go on with their life, continue their studies and try to overcome their problems?

Again, nobody but a few quote-mined idiots are proposing not teaching stuff that some people don't like. Again, not everyone who enters the medical profession has an iron stomach. People can overcome traumatic memories and can get used to the icky factor.

I find that to be a very risky investment in time, money and effort that has a chance of newer paying off. And if it does not the only thing you achieved was not only wasting your own resources but denying someone more deserving and capable their place.

The same can be said for many students who have no such problems but don't have enough ambition, motivation or discipline. More people flunk out of medical school because of those problems than from being squeamish.

[Purple]

Your ability to establish context is incredibly shitty then, your tone is highly accusatory because you do not establish distance from me and your subject group.

That I can not deny. English language and the culture associated with speaking it is nowhere near my first. And I receive this sort of input from people on a regular basis because of it. Like not a week ago I found out that certain phrases which in my mother tongue are completely inconspicuous when translated to english directly make me sound like a Nazi because in english they carry a connotation I was unaware off. So yea, quite likely.

So do I. I even got a book from him. We even dissected a fish.

Than you know what I am talking about.

You are again conflicting "giving a warning" with "deciding not to teach it at all". I am in favor of the former but not the latter. Just because the article is trying to conflate the two with quote-mining a few idiots, doesn't mean they are necessarily connected at all. A warning only takes a sentence or two before a lecture and places responsibility on the student.

The way I see it students should inform them self about what they are going to study before signing up. Only a very stupid person goes into any field blindly if for no other reason than because it means potentially wasting time and effort on something you don't like, have no talent in and can't work in effectively tomorrow. So a warning is, as Thanas pointed out unnecessary.

Why do you think some people chose the subject in the first place? Again, Alyrium Denryle gives a good example with his sub-Saharan students who want to study the field and subject precisely because it impacted their lives. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't? Because what you are suggesting is that they should shelter themselves from subject and never expose themselves to it.

What I am suggesting is a combination of common sense and intelligence. What you study in university is (hopefully) going to determine what you do for a living for the rest of your life. It is a huge investment in effort, time and depending on the university and your country money. It is not a decision you should take lightly or without proper preparation. A potential student should thus inform him self of what he is signing up to and make sure to sort any issues he or she has before and not during or after making that investment if at all possible. If you can not comprehend the simple economic logic behind this I would suggest you try reading it with your emotions turned off.

Another case is the example that Alyrium brings up is someone that got raped while they are doing their studies. Should they abandon their carrier, resources and time already spent because of it, to give up because some asshole couldn't buy a fleshlight? Or should they instead try to go on with their life, continue their studies and try to overcome their problems?

That depends on the field in question really. Some fields simply require day to day constant exposure to things that might make a trigger happy person blow up. Some don't. A student of history can spend pretty much their whole life without ever addressing something that might trigger them. A student of medicine for example far less so. So these are widely different scenarios.

What I will say though is that irregardless of the field this hypothetical student should strive to overcome what ever trauma there is on his or her own time and effort and not demand that the world bend over backward to accommodate that recovery. Bottom line is that life ain't fair. Life ain't nice. Life has no mercy. It will do nasty horrible things to you at no fault of your own. It will chew you up, vomit you out and than urinate in that vomit whilst laughing hysterically. And that is an absolute universal constant of the world we live in. A person who can't come to terms with that fundamental reality, face it and overcome it through sheer strength of will is very ill suited to function in society.

Again, nobody but a few quote-mined idiots are proposing not teaching stuff that some people don't like. Again, not everyone who enters the medical profession has an iron stomach. People can overcome traumatic memories and can get used to the icky factor.

As I said time and time again. The order of things is: Get informed -> prepare by overcoming any issues -> enter course. 1->2->3 and not 3->2 skipping 1. It's called sound economic thinking.

The same can be said for many students who have no such problems but don't have enough ambition, motivation or discipline. More people flunk out of medical school because of those problems than from being squeamish.

And I am personally of the opinion that people who are not prepared or motivated to put in the effort required to graduate have no place in higher education. University is not a game. It's not a funtime activity you sign up to get away from having to find a job for a few years so you can spend your 20's getting drunk and laid. It's a serious undertaking that requires serious consideration and work. People need to realize that.

[Simon_Jester]

If your students are "flipping out" about the type of mundane shit being taught in a classroom, then I seriously question their mental fortitude and ability to deal with a world which won't cater to their delicate sensibilities. If someone's tolerance for certain words, phrases or concepts is so low that even discussing it in an academic setting "triggers" them, it's a wonder how they expect to function in a society which isn't being as good-hearted as you.

Some of the flipouts in question are triggered by descriptions of damaging rapes being inflicted by animals with (by human standards) grotesque anatomy. Or things like parasitic wasps that paralyze other insects and lay eggs inside them, which hatch and eat the victim alive from the inside out.

Those are NOT normal things which appear in everyday society. Being unusually disturbed by such things is not a sign that one is 'unable to function.'

Ah, but there's a difference between "do you favor censoring speech" and "do you favor censoring speech offensive to minorities?

You said:

"the recent Pew poll which showed 40% of Millennials were in support of the government banning "offensive" speech. "

You said "offensive." You did not say "offensive to minorities."

I suspect that a huge proportion of people who are now over 70 (that is, people born before 1946) are now or were at one time in favor of censoring speech. It's just that the speech they wanted to censor was speech offensive to the dominant culture of the era. Not speech offensive to blacks or sexually harassed women or gay people.

You're playing semantics and avoiding the heart of the matter Simon.

No, I'm not.

My point is simple. YES, a significant minority of people born after 1980 favor some form of censorship of speech "offensive to minorities."

But this does not mean what you think it means. It is not somehow a sign of the 'growing wimpification of Americans' or whatever.

Because if you look at people born before 1980, if you were to poll opinions on censorship across generations and over long periods of time, you would always find people in favor of censorship. People who advocate censoring poems that portray homosexual relationships as even existing. People who advocate censoring interracial kisses on TV. People who advocate censoring troublesome movements that dare to demand the right to vote. People who advocate censoring anti-slavery literature!

What has changed is not that Americans are "too wimpy."

What has changed is that instead of seeking to censor those who make the majority uncomfortable, we now have a generation of people who are turning the same impulse of censorship onto those who make the minority uncomfortable.

This is not degeneration, this is not improvement. This is movement 'sideways.'

That is the entirety of my point. I have missed nothing here, I understand you quite well- but I have my own opinions and arguments and I ask that you do me the courtesy of bothering to try and understand the things I say.

That's the type of stereotypical BS which is what makes me believe much of the underlying argument for "triggers warnings" is bullshit. On occasion something like watching a war movie can bring back memories from their time in the service, but often not, and more frequently it will be something completely random and unrelated. There's no way to guard against that by avoiding all "triggering" moments, and the same holds true for these students. Is it better for them to go through their formative years never having to confront something emotionally troubling or offensive, in a (relatively) safe environment like an academic setting, so that when they're out in the world at a dinner party or in a coffee shop or at the supermarket and are confronted by someone being rude or offensive or "triggering" they can "flip out" right then and there because they weren't adequately warned beforehand?

Is it better to make the environment unsafe by saying things that can cause people to be horrorstruck and disturbed without even doing them the courtesy of telling them in advance?

If I'm going to start throwing conversational hand grenades around, even granted that I have a good reason, it behooves me to warn people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If someone's tolerance for certain words, phrases or concepts is so low that even discussing it in an academic setting "triggers" them, it's a wonder how they expect to function in a society which isn't being as good-hearted as you.

Nature is a terrifying place when you get even a little bit beneath the surface of it. The amount of body-horror and rape is... unimaginable. Despite having been sexually assaulted myself, I find that sort of thing fascinating, but not everyone has the same reaction I do, and someone's career goals might not precisely mesh with my classes. Someone going into microbiology or medicine might take an animal behavior class, and when we discuss sexual selection, the elephant in the room that we ALWAYS have to address is forced copulation.

I dont shy away from that subject or refuse to teach it.

But I do tell my students that the subject material that they will be responsible for on my exam might trigger a reaction they would rather not experience.

Ducks committing gang rape might remind someone of their own gang rape. Holy Shit. Bed Bugs use "Traumatic Insemination". Plus, the resultant class discussion ALWAYS gets unpleasant for the female half of the class, because it has implications regarding the evolution of rape, spousal abuse, and child abuse in humans. You dont have to be mentally fragile to be disturbed by that discussion, but for someone who has experienced the above... the likelihood and magnitude increases. I am not a fucking therapist. I am not qualified to perform cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Getting up and saying, at the start of class

"Alright guys and gals, we have been talking about sexual selection for the past week. But there is one avenue of it that we have ignored. Forced copulation. Today we are going to be talking about rape among animals, as well as other forms of sexual coercion. I am not going to softball this, and the implications for humans will inevitably be in the class discussion in the last 20 minutes. For some of you, this might get extremely personal, if you feel you need to, feel free to get up and leave at any time. I wont ask questions. You still need to know the material for the exam, so feel free to come by my office and pick up my notes. My supplemental reading was also selected for that eventuality. Okay. Lets get started"

Is not coddling anyone, or letting anyone get out of the material.

I suppose if we want to start using anecdotes with a bit more weight to them (sorry all you perfectly healthy people), we could take the opinions of people with some expertise in the area:

Research psychologists are also not therapists or clinicians. Yeah, their research might guide therapists and clinical psychologists in the development of therapies, but they are also not qualified to perform exposure therapy for PTSD.

Do you propose then, that we throw spiders at every arachnophobe we see? Oh, I know! I will sit my friend who has been gang raped twice down in a nice comfy chair and without warning or preamble show them one of the gang-rape scenes in Game of Thrones. Afterall, I am helping them through exposure.

Obviously that is just fucking sadistic. A therapist can do that, in a controlled setting, and ALWAYS with a warning and informed consent first. Often after systematic exposure of decreased intensity.

But I am not qualified to do that.

[Channel72]

Sh*m*l*

What is that? Schlemiel? Is that like offensive now?

[Edi]

Probably "shemale", which is a derogatory reference to transgender people. I do not see why the terms should be asterisked out when they are being discussed in an analytical manner in a context of what makes them offensive, to whom and when.

[Ralin]

I do not see why the terms should be asterisked out when they are being discussed in an analytical manner in a context of what makes them offensive, to whom and when.

I don't either, and the partially starring out words thing usually isn't done with longer words to boot, but people can be weird about slurs and epitaphs applied to themselves and/or people close to them. I wouldn't do it myself, but there really isn't a right answer to that sort of thing.

[Dragon Angel]

I do not see why the terms should be asterisked out when they are being discussed in an analytical manner in a context of what makes them offensive, to whom and when.

I don't either, and the partially starring out words thing usually isn't done with longer words to boot, but people can be weird about slurs and epitaphs applied to themselves and/or people close to them. I wouldn't do it myself, but there really isn't a right answer to that sort of thing.

Yeah I was meaning shemale. I asterisked because it's been a while since I posted and I forgot the board's attitude toward slurs in even this context.

[Ralin]

Yeah I was meaning shemale. I asterisked because it's been a while since I posted and I forgot the board's attitude toward slurs in even this context.

It just seems like such a trite and vaguely dishonest convention.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah I was meaning shemale. I asterisked because it's been a while since I posted and I forgot the board's attitude toward slurs in even this context.

It just seems like such a trite and vaguely dishonest convention.

Yeah, but we have a pretty hard policy on the subject of slurs, so I can totally understand not wanting to be in violation of the letter, even if the spirit remains unbroken.

[Flagg]

'Fuck'
'Shit'
'Cunt'
'Asshole'
'Motherfucker'

These are all fairly mundane words that nevertheless are likely to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction from a lot of people. Surprisingly we don't consider these people unfit for participation in society.

Speak for yourself. With "cunt" as a possible exception due to its misogynistic usage by most (I'm a horrible hypocrite on that one, even though I'm far more likely to use the word to refer to non-gender specific groups or males, as opposed to "bitch" which I usually reserve for females as I've found its use targeting males to be used largely in an emasculating way) users of the word. But in my opinion, anyone over the age of 12 who freaks out at the use of those common words (and many others) in everyday conversation and society (barring a professional setting) amongst non-prepubescents needs to grow the fuck up and be an adult or join the clergy.

[the atom]

'Fuck'
'Shit'
'Cunt'
'Asshole'
'Motherfucker'

These are all fairly mundane words that nevertheless are likely to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction from a lot of people. Surprisingly we don't consider these people unfit for participation in society.

Speak for yourself. With "cunt" as a possible exception due to its misogynistic usage by most (I'm a horrible hypocrite on that one, even though I'm far more likely to use the word to refer to non-gender specific groups or males, as opposed to "bitch" which I usually reserve for females as I've found its use targeting males to be used largely in an emasculating way) users of the word. But in my opinion, anyone over the age of 12 who freaks out at the use of those common words (and many others) in everyday conversation and society (barring a professional setting) amongst non-prepubescents needs to grow the fuck up and be an adult or join the clergy.

Well yeah, I'm pretty much 100% on board with you. I'm just pointing out that people lose their shit over those words are not generally considered incapable of functioning in society (even if honestly they should be).

[Flagg]

Yeah I was meaning shemale. I asterisked because it's been a while since I posted and I forgot the board's attitude toward slurs in even this context.

It just seems like such a trite and vaguely dishonest convention.

Agreed. It's like saying "n-word" or "effing". What's the difference? We all know exactly what people who use such euphemisms are saying.

[Flagg]

'Fuck'
'Shit'
'Cunt'
'Asshole'
'Motherfucker'

These are all fairly mundane words that nevertheless are likely to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction from a lot of people. Surprisingly we don't consider these people unfit for participation in society.

Speak for yourself. With "cunt" as a possible exception due to its misogynistic usage by most (I'm a horrible hypocrite on that one, even though I'm far more likely to use the word to refer to non-gender specific groups or males, as opposed to "bitch" which I usually reserve for females as I've found its use targeting males to be used largely in an emasculating way) users of the word. But in my opinion, anyone over the age of 12 who freaks out at the use of those common words (and many others) in everyday conversation and society (barring a professional setting) amongst non-prepubescents needs to grow the fuck up and be an adult or join the clergy.

Well yeah, I'm pretty much 100% on board with you. I'm just pointing out that people lose their shit over those words are not generally considered incapable of functioning in society (even if honestly they should be).

Ahh, I get you, you're talking public perception.

[Dragon Angel]

Yeah I was meaning shemale. I asterisked because it's been a while since I posted and I forgot the board's attitude toward slurs in even this context.

It just seems like such a trite and vaguely dishonest convention.

Agreed. It's like saying "n-word" or "effing". What's the difference? We all know exactly what people who use such euphemisms are saying.

I prefer saying it outright as well for the same reason, but having been through more than several communities I try to err on the side of caution, especially since board policy as Alyrium suggested. Another community would have guidelines explicitly allowing these uses in these contexts. Different communities are just different, and some people just don't like seeing the word in front of them casually so I make my best effort to be accommodating.

[Purple]

This might just be me talking but what strikes me about the outrage concerning said words is that it is in my opinion completely misplaced. It all focuses on the idea that the meaning of the word used is key and that the insult in using it lies with being labeled as what ever the word means. But this is simply not the case.

The insult in being called any of those is not in a literal application of the adjective but the intent behind it. What you are doing when you call someone that is not labeling him a female, she-dog or what ever else the noun literally means but calling him a [bad word]. And the insult is not in being called female or she-dog or what ever else but in the fact that this person has chosen to use a universally accepted slur to describe you.

You can see this rather easily if you simply substitute the curse words in a conversation with their non curse synonyms. Suddenly the same sentence is (for most people) no longer insulting even though it has the exact same meaning.

Fact of the matter is that once you grow past the age of 12 being called a girl is just not something that insults you. But the universally accepted curse words associated with that stay the same because their symbolic meaning as an insult is what matters.

[Zixinus]

The way I see it students should inform them self about what they are going to study before signing up.

This is reasonable only to a limited extent. Going into parasiotology has the warning on the tin, but the thing is that the actual depth of just how "bad" it can be is unknown even to someone who has informed themselves. There comes a point where to know about the material you have to have taken the material.

For example, rape in animal world. It's something someone going into biology would guess that it would happen sometimes but the biology textbooks they got in their hands during pre-college didn't mention it. Only for it to turn out that entire species depend on it and do it in hideous form.

The other aspect is that people sensitive to certain subjects does not mean that they have zero tolerance for it. It may be that someone who has taken the subject has some issues with certain aspects of it but find they are able to handle it. Maybe they actually have made great progress with therapy on the very subject. Only for it to turn out that in a lecture they will casually show and go into detail about something ten times stronger than their limit. What then? If they had a warning, it is solely the student's responsibility, including the decision to leave the lecture and get trough the material with some preparation. A warning may actually be enough for them to get trough it because they could steel themselves for the presentation of the material, something they couldn't if it was caught by surprise.

What I am suggesting is a combination of common sense and intelligence.

No, what you are suggesting is merely a repeat of the point already made ("They should know before going signing up!") without acknowledging any of the problems that is being discussed or even seem to understand what is being discussed.

That depends on the field in question really. Some fields simply require day to day constant exposure to things that might make a trigger happy person blow up

Trigger-happy individual? Do you think people who have traumatic memories want to recall them? Do you think they like having an emotional breakdown when they have it recalled by a careless comment, to do it in public and in front of their peers?

You seem to not even grasp what we are talking about, continuously dismissing the pain and suffering other people have and their daily struggle with it. Maybe you should inform yourself before making long post that boil down to complete refusal to acknowledge anything and dictating what other people should do.

What I will say though is that irregardless of the field this hypothetical student should strive to overcome what ever trauma there is on his or her own time and effort and not demand that the world bend over backward to accommodate that recovery.

So what you are saying that the student just stop their studies altogether until some far-future date that their mental wounds are fully healed?

You demonstrate a complete and utter ignorance of the subject being discussed. Mental problems do not work that way. The extent of the trauma can last not just weeks or months but years, decades even. There is no "fully healed, as good as before the injury" status, there are some scars that people carry for life and have no choice but to bear them. Meanwhile, life goes on and they have to do the same. This is not to mention that people can be in a state where they still have their problems/issues but can still function everyday.

You also do not seem to understand what being in college is like either. Losing a semester is not something undertaken lightly, whether because of scholarship or because of financial reasons. This is not to mention the nature of the study and work that is required. Getting out of the study discipline and out of practice can be dangerous. If they have to work to sustain themselves (as opposed to student loan/scholarships) they may find themselves in a situation where they have to drop out no matter what they want.

Sure, if someone has been hurt so badly that they can't study, it's reasonable to tell them to just stop the semester or skip it. But two semesters? Three? Not so affordable. Even if the scholarship permits this, they still have to eat in the mean time. This may not be affordable or possible for a variety of reasons. So some people have no other option but to risk it.

Bottom line is that life ain't fair

So students should not ask that the environment they decided to spend large amount of time and energy in (and in many cases, their money) should not be made a safe environment?

The universe is cold and uncaring, but that does not mean people should be too and by extension, institutions.

Let me give you a good example of this: racism.

It's not illegal to be racist. It's possible for professors to be racist. Until the universities and colleges revised their code of conduct appropriately, it was perfectly possible for a professor to treat a student badly due to their racism. These professors could set out that no black/asian/whatever student passes their course and thrown everything legally possible for him to do to prevent them. It can be everything from giving them extra work, demanding of them ten times as much as a non-targeted student, rate their tests as harshly as he technically can, turning other students against them (which by itself alone can be enough to make a student's life impossible) and all while freely using the most hurtful racist language he can use?

Should these students just suck it up, lose their opportunity of education because life is not fair? Should they just stop making an issue out of it and bear it with silence? Should they suffer from racism just because it is not illegal or not specified in the rules?

Because this is not that terribly different, in actuality this is far, far less of a change and issue.

You are dead-set against a few sentences worth of warnings at lectures, something that actual lecturers like Alyrium seems perfectly fine to give. In reality, some lecturers allow this for regular students who have to skip the lecture for whatever reason, they are still held to standards. As others have pointed out, the article is alarmist and shows the actual extent for this far out of proportion.

A person who can't come to terms with that fundamental reality, face it and overcome it through sheer strength of will is very ill suited to function in society.

People like that aren't in college or even in public, they are either in asylums or kept by someone in a home. We are talking about people that do have the ability but it is an everyday struggle for them that does not need to be made worse than it is.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Zixinus, there is a reason I have not bothered to engage with Purple. His capacity for basic human empathy is... limited. The concept that there ought be any accounting for the feelings or limits of others is something that does not compute for him. I dont know if it is a personality disorder, some sort of internet-Data affectation (poorly executed because Data actually cared for others, he just could not emulate them) or what. But he has been pretty consistent there. Not worth the effort.

[Flagg]

Zixinus, there is a reason I have not bothered to engage with Purple. His capacity for basic human empathy is... limited. The concept that there ought be any accounting for the feelings or limits of others is something that does not compute for him. I dont know if it is a personality disorder, some sort of internet-Data affectation (poorly executed because Data actually cared for others, he just could not emulate them) or what. But he has been pretty consistent there. Not worth the effort.

He suffers from (I think this is the correct and official medical terminology) being an insufferable, intolerable, and unmitigated walking, talking piece of shit with no redeeming qualities whatsoever besides the fact that being a living organism, he will die one day.

[Adam Reynolds]

Zixinus, there is a reason I have not bothered to engage with Purple. His capacity for basic human empathy is... limited. The concept that there ought be any accounting for the feelings or limits of others is something that does not compute for him. I dont know if it is a personality disorder, some sort of internet-Data affectation (poorly executed because Data actually cared for others, he just could not emulate them) or what. But he has been pretty consistent there. Not worth the effort.

So do you think that students should study things that they would find disturbing? In the long run, that seems problematic if they intend to seriously work in the field and be exposed to things far worse than what they see in the relatively sterile environment of a classroom.

He suffers from (I think this is the correct and official medical terminology) being an insufferable, intolerable, and unmitigated walking, talking piece of shit with no redeeming qualities whatsoever besides the fact that being a living organism, he will die one day.

He might just be a plain sociopath(APD is the clinical term). People like that often do perfectly well blending into normal society unless given the right stimulus. The anonymity of the internet just happens to give exactly that stimulus as it lessens social punishment that tends to keep them in line in normal society

[Alyrium Denryle]

So do you think that students should study things that they would find disturbing? In the long run, that seems problematic if they intend to seriously work in the field and be exposed to things far worse than what they see in the relatively sterile environment of a classroom.

I think that someone who has serious problems going anywhere near spousal abuse because of PTSD should think twice before becoming a social worker with the department of children and families (or whatever the local authority is). However, those same problems should not stop them from studying social psychology.

When you take social psych (I did, psych minor in undergrad), you learn about some disturbing shit. You learn about the etiology of spousal abuse and cult indoctrination for example. Because those things are useful as teaching tools for other concepts (cognitive dissonance and social exchange theory primarily) and also because it is something of a public service.

And people who want to study social psychology in say, graduate school, need a basic grounding in that stuff. But unless they are studying spousal abuse, they dont necessarily have to touch that specific material again in their lives. They might study social psychological processes in political decision making or the psychology of mobs etc. But what that means is, they need to know it, but you dont have to shove it in their face without warning or be a giant douchebag about it.