The Coddling of the American Mind

[Crown]

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

Or he has a higher functioning bullshit meter (or a lower tolerance for bullshit) then others. Lets not diagnose people of the internet shall we?

What this all boils down to is a difference of assumption on the term 'trigger warning'. Group 1 is assuming; hey people may have some trauma in their history which some subjects may make them uncomfortable, just issuing a general warning that this might happen before going into these subjects is just politeness, and why are you against politeness?

Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl, or the girl who thought the word 'violate' would be a 'trigger' and didn't want it used during law school, or the black student who said addressing a white lecturer as 'Master' was 'triggering' him due to slavery, or the Yale students flipping the fuck out because a lecturer at Yale wouldn't pre-emptively ban Halloween costumes or the Missou nut jobs who made being run over by the Dean (we can go on here).

So you have these two non-divergent positions. Personally I really don't believe half of the shit these students are flipping out about. I really don't. However at the same time I recall during sex education in Year 10 (so about 16 years old) we were shown a video of a woman giving birth. One of the girls fainted, we had to take her outside so she could recover and she couldn't watch the video beyond the point of the crowning. So I'm not going to pretend that legitimately it would never actually happen.

But hey, guess what, no one died, and she's now a mum. So really they'll get over it. And for that reason, say no to trigger warnings and safe spaces.

[Flagg]

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

Don't know, don't care. Aside from the fact that I'm not a mental health professional (though I oddly have an innate or learned ability to detect "psychopaths" (that's also "sociopaths" as there's no difference and IIRC "sociopath" isn't even a term used by any credible mental health professional) both in person and if given enough time/interaction with one, online, but since I'm not a psychiatrist I don't claim to be able to diagnose anyone, I can just "tell" and have had several admit that they have been given that or a similar diagnosis which I find fascinating and creepy ) and am not particularly interested in playing one on the internet, whether you're a psychopath, monumental twat, or run of the mill troll it doesn't make much of a difference to me. You can't cure any of those, and Purple acts like one of them more often than not.

[Flagg]

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

Or he has a higher functioning bullshit meter (or a lower tolerance for bullshit) then others. Lets not diagnose people of the internet shall we?

What this all boils down to is a difference of assumption on the term 'trigger warning'. Group 1 is assuming; hey people may have some trauma in their history which some subjects may make them uncomfortable, just issuing a general warning that this might happen before going into these subjects is just politeness, and why are you against politeness?

Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl, or the girl who thought the word 'violate' would be a 'trigger' and didn't want it used during law school, or the black student who said addressing a white lecturer as 'Master' was 'triggering' him due to slavery, or the Yale students flipping the fuck out because a lecturer at Yale wouldn't pre-emptively ban Halloween costumes or the Missou nut jobs who made being run over by the Dean (we can go on here).

So you have these two non-divergent positions. Personally I really don't believe half of the shit these students are flipping out about. I really don't. However at the same time I recall during sex education in Year 10 (so about 16 years old) we were shown a video of a woman giving birth. One of the girls fainted, we had to take her outside so she could recover and she couldn't watch the video beyond the point of the crowning. So I'm not going to pretend that legitimately it would never actually happen.

But hey, guess what, no one died, and she's now a mum. So really they'll get over it. And for that reason, say no to trigger warnings and safe spaces.

Oh, fuck off with the Philosophy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. The Global Climate Change denying and "it's ok not to vote because both parties suck" fucknuggets of mindless Libertarianism who think you can just change the meaning of a hateful slur from a massively persecuted group to "annoying loud motorcyclists" and any dipshitted cunt who would post a clip from a South Park episode to defend an indefensible position can all get fucked.

I've had full blown panic attacks that resulted in me going to the ER due to flashbacks to traumatic events in my past caused by certain things I've seen or heard (apparently those are caused "triggers" now), so anyone who makes light of that or makes fun of it can die in a fire along with anyone defending them.

[Crown]

Oh, fuck off with the Philosophy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. The Global Climate Change denying and "it's ok not to vote because both parties suck" fucknuggets of mindless Libertarianism who think you can just change the meaning of a hateful slur from a massively persecuted group to "annoying loud motorcyclists" and any dipshitted cunt who would post a clip from a South Park episode to defend an indefensible position can all get fucked.

No.

I've had full blown panic attacks that resulted in me going to the ER due to flashbacks to traumatic events in my past caused by certain things I've seen or heard (apparently those are caused "triggers" now), so anyone who makes light of that or makes fun of it can die in a fire along with anyone defending them.

That's unfortunate.

[Flagg]

Oh, fuck off with the Philosophy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. The Global Climate Change denying and "it's ok not to vote because both parties suck" fucknuggets of mindless Libertarianism who think you can just change the meaning of a hateful slur from a massively persecuted group to "annoying loud motorcyclists" and any dipshitted cunt who would post a clip from a South Park episode to defend an indefensible position can all get fucked.

No.

I've had full blown panic attacks that resulted in me going to the ER due to flashbacks to traumatic events in my past caused by certain things I've seen or heard (apparently those are caused "triggers" now), so anyone who makes light of that or makes fun of it can die in a fire along with anyone defending them.

That's unfortunate.

Do you have problems with epilepsy warnings on screen before video games or movie and television ratings that list why a movie or episode is rated that way? Because I don't see a difference between that and "trigger warnings" for certain subjects in a classroom or lecture setting.

But then, you seem like the usual fuckheaded dipshit who thinks they shouldn't be told to use any constraint when it comes to your behavior and anyone who suffers ill effects should "get over it" as long as you act within the rules. So yeah, you're in fine company with Climate Change Deniers, bigots, and someone who doesn't care if thier actions cause someone to flop around on the floor like a dying fish in full seizure while choking on their own saliva.

Congratulations, you are the very definition of an empathy-less cunt.

[Crown]

Do you have problems with epilepsy warnings on screen before video games or movie and television ratings that list why a movie or episode is rated that way? Because I don't see a difference between that and "trigger warnings" for certain subjects in a classroom or lecture setting.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

But then, you seem like the usual fuckheaded dipshit who thinks they shouldn't be told to use any constraint when it comes to your behavior and anyone who suffers ill effects should "get over it" as long as you act within the rules. So yeah, you're in fine company with Climate Change Deniers, bigots, and someone who doesn't care if thier actions cause someone to flop around on the floor like a dying fish in full seizure while choking on their own saliva.

You go Don Quixote, show those dragons your valour!

Congratulations, you are the very definition of an empathy-less cunt.

Is there an award? A Medal perhaps?

[aerius]

I demand a trigger warning on this thread, it has too many bad words and stupid people, and it exceeds my daily tolerance for bullshit. I might flip out and kill this puppy. Think of the puppies.

---

A discussion on trigger warnings and all that other stuff is worthless until we can agree on what the purpose of your colleges & universities is. If the purpose is to churn out a bunch of grads with a worthless piece of paper after fleecing them for $100k, then who the fuck cares? They can have their happy place, they're paying for it and once they graduate they'll just get their resumes circular filed anyway since no one wants to hire them, so they won't have to deal with real life.

If the colleges are actually going to prepare students for the real world and turn out well-adjusted adults, it's now a whole different story. In the real world there are no safe spaces, trigger warnings, or anything of that sort, it's indifferent at best and at times it's outright vicious. I've heard co-workers yell out "you fucking slut!" in frustration among many other sexist and racial phrases, and that's not even getting into the usual workplace politics in a larger business. Is it right? No, but it's probably not going away for quite some time.

So we need to get the kids ready for that. Coddling them ain't gonna do it. We expose them to things in a controlled environment, some of them might get triggered and that's fine, that's what counseling is for. We can help them to overcome things with therapy and if that doesn't work then we can suggest that going into social work isn't the best idea if you don't want to heartbreaking stories of children having their lives ruined by poverty. You want to weed them out and get them sorted & ready to deal with shit before throwing them out into the real world where they're going to get shit on. If a student has some kind of issue it's much better to find out about it and deal with it in college rather than afterwards.

[Purple]

Finally someone who understands.

[Dragon Angel]

It's really amusing when someone unironically presents South Park. It's been a while since I've seen it, but nearly every description of it I hear really comes across as "it's not cool to have strong feelings about anything, it's really cool to just believe everything is a golden mean".

If the colleges are actually going to prepare students for the real world and turn out well-adjusted adults, it's now a whole different story. In the real world there are no safe spaces, trigger warnings, or anything of that sort, it's indifferent at best and at times it's outright vicious. I've heard co-workers yell out "you fucking slut!" in frustration among many other sexist and racial phrases, and that's not even getting into the usual workplace politics in a larger business. Is it right? No, but it's probably not going away for quite some time.

So we need to get the kids ready for that. Coddling them ain't gonna do it. We expose them to things in a controlled environment, some of them might get triggered and that's fine, that's what counseling is for. We can help them to overcome things with therapy and if that doesn't work then we can suggest that going into social work isn't the best idea if you don't want to heartbreaking stories of children having their lives ruined by poverty. You want to weed them out and get them sorted & ready to deal with shit before throwing them out into the real world where they're going to get shit on. If a student has some kind of issue it's much better to find out about it and deal with it in college rather than afterwards.

To this I respond, having said earlier:

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.

This isn't "coddling". This is attempting to prioritize mental health and make learning more streamlined, and the casual dismissal by many of the importance of mental health is seriously disturbing. Anyone without personal experience of mental health issues or professional experience dealing with those with mental health issues has no qualifications to make this kind of a judgement. People with either who casually dismiss the importance of mental health don't speak for everyone either, nor do they have either a full grasp of what actually happens or basic empathy for others in their situations, or others they attend to. I've heard of and even experienced shit therapists who are like that, and who have no business being in this kind of a field.

I have no idea what it is that makes a lot of people believe they are experts on mental health. This is such a common theme it's infuriating, even moreso than Internet Lawyers or Internet Doctors.

[Flagg]

Do you have problems with epilepsy warnings on screen before video games or movie and television ratings that list why a movie or episode is rated that way? Because I don't see a difference between that and "trigger warnings" for certain subjects in a classroom or lecture setting.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Not at all:

So you have these two non-divergent positions. Personally I really don't believe half of the shit these students are flipping out about. I really don't. However at the same time I recall during sex education in Year 10 (so about 16 years old) we were shown a video of a woman giving birth. One of the girls fainted, we had to take her outside so she could recover and she couldn't watch the video beyond the point of the crowning. So I'm not going to pretend that legitimately it would never actually happen.

But hey, guess what, no one died, and she's now a mum. So really they'll get over it. And for that reason, say no to trigger warnings and safe spaces.

But I'm probably overreacting to your callous disregard to others past trauma. I mean sure, my 16 year old male babysitter forced my 4yo self to give him a handjob (he called it "rubbing his peanut") and tried forcing me to give him fellatio when he came as he "took over" when he ejaculated, which I refused to do and tried to get away. For that he managed to hold my arms against my back with one arm/hand, took his other arm and put a plastic clothes pin on the head of my penis, then squeezed my scrotum until I almost passed out in pain.

He threatened to kill my cat and put her head on my pillow if I ever told anyone, plus it was all "normal things older kids do to younger kids so no one would care."
3 days later he came back to "visit" when my mom was home to make sure I said nothing. He gave me two 4 or 6 inch die-cast cars, one yellow the other blue, I assume as bribes. I never said anything until I was 13. I still had the cars. Any time I looked at them from 4 to 13 (when I smashed them to bits with an ax) I would bite the inside of my bottom lip until it bled.

I am unable to have the slightest bit of an intimate relationship with women, despite being decidedly heterosexual, because I panic the second anyone touches my genitals.

I'd love to be able to help children who went through what I did, but despite 21 years of therapy and counseling I have panic attacks when interacting with young children or talking about sexual abuse. Right now my hands are shaking.

But I guess that's just unfortunate.

[the atom]

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.

Fair warning, this attitude will probably get you broken teeth.

[Joun_Lord]

I personally have no problem with some giving a trigger warning so long as its not going out of the way to "coddle" someone. Warning someone about potentially upsetting things is fine but actually trying to remove those upsetting things is upsetting to me and triggers me.

Its like someone earlier mentioned seizure warnings on movies and tv shows or listing the rating and why its gets that rating. Thats fine, the actual thing is not altered but there is a warning for people who might be negatively affected by it.

Just the same with like a college class, a warning about rape or violence or icky stuff is perfectly fine. It informs people about potentially upsetting or even harmful material (someone with PTSD when triggered could easily suffer mental or even physical problems) so they might avoid it. Thats a good thing. It becomes a problem when a lesson is altered to conform to them, negatively effecting the educational process. Just the same if people who are triggered are just given a passing grade without doing the lesson or finding a equal alternative. Thats unfair to the person's education and to others who had to earn their grade.

Or it would be like closer to home for me if because some of the books at were I worked were sanitized to not risk offending. And there are plenty of books like reference books or fiction or whatever that contain some pretty graphic stuff. Medical books have boobs, history books have violence and torture, or Trump The Art of the Deal has Donald Trump in it. I mean shit there was a practically pornographic book on homosexual sex positions and relationships in pretty graphic illustrations, I'm sure that would trigger the fuck out of some immature or homophobic assholes.

And when a patron stops in asking for certain books if I know the content I might try to warn them. As someone who was horrifically abused as a kid I understand how upsetting some things can be. I try to avoid things that remind me of my stepfather (except 12 gauges, long story). For the longest time I hated going out in the woods because it reminded me of all the abuses and tortures inflicted upon me. I understand the want to avoid certain things that remind someone of past trauma.

Thats why I don't mind informing someone of something bad. Like I remember telling someone picking up the Watchmen graphic novel that there was a pretty effect up rape part in the novel (though strangely did not mention the millions of people who die, probably says something about the American attitude towards sex and violence). Some little kid trying to get a medical textbook for some school project I might point them towards something a bit more kid friendly (and leaves me scratching my why some teachers are forcing kids to use physical books and not allowing them to use the internet for reports and crap, I mean I shouldn't be complaining considering my job but still, seems like extra work on the kids). A history book with some nutty Nazi stuff I will warn someone that it has some pretty graphic pictures of the Holocaust. It doesn't take more then a moment to warn someone of crap like that, no skin off my back. But I'd be damned pissed if people were trying to ban those books because they might be upsetting.

Fuck I wouldn't want to even ban Twilight and that is literary cancer. But some people want to read that garbage and its not for me to decide they cannot read it because its upsetting to me. Goddamn hundred year old High School student pedophile stone skin vampires creepin on boring girls and goddamn furry ass shirtless werewolves creepin on newborns because they could sleep with the kids boring mama. Fucking triggers me 6 ways to sunday.

[biostem]

IMO, the issue lies with a person who "self diagnoses" some word, event, image, or anything else, as triggering. I believe it was Christopher Hitchens who said "offense is not given", meaning that potentially anything one person says can be triggering/offensive/problematic, (oh how I hate that last one), for another. It gets to a point where you start going from things which may be sensibly off-putting, (gore, racial epithets, etc), to things which are simply mundane, (gendered pronouns, colloquialisms).

It is important for young people to accept that the world will not, (and should not), cater to their whims and desires, and while striving to improve said world is a noble sentiment, you must also toughen up to ideas and positions that do not align with your own. Frankly, it is this latter point which should be emphasized in these institutions of higher learning.

If I were a university official, and students started acting up like some of the clips I've seen, I'd issue them demerits or suspensions. Heck, I'd mandate that they take classes which teach the harsh realities of differing opinions and how to deal with dissent/conflict, not how to shy away from it and retreat to your "safe space". Bring in trauma counselors or other legitimate experts, instead of setting up these saccharine rooms with bubbles and puppies...

[Flagg]

IMO, the issue lies with a person who "self diagnoses" some word, event, image, or anything else, as triggering. I believe it was Christopher Hitchens who said "offense is not given", meaning that potentially anything one person says can be triggering/offensive/problematic, (oh how I hate that last one), for another. It gets to a point where you start going from things which may be sensibly off-putting, (gore, racial epithets, etc), to things which are simply mundane, (gendered pronouns, colloquialisms).

It is important for young people to accept that the world will not, (and should not), cater to their whims and desires, and while striving to improve said world is a noble sentiment, you must also toughen up to ideas and positions that do not align with your own. Frankly, it is this latter point which should be emphasized in these institutions of higher learning.

If I were a university official, and students started acting up like some of the clips I've seen, I'd issue them demerits or suspensions. Heck, I'd mandate that they take classes which teach the harsh realities of differing opinions and how to deal with dissent/conflict, not how to shy away from it and retreat to your "safe space". Bring in trauma counselors or other legitimate experts, instead of setting up these saccharine rooms with bubbles and puppies...

And what about those with diagnosed mental illnesses that are a result of past trauma? Do you do the intelligent thing and offer in-depth information of things in the curriculum so that those individuals can avoid them or do you just tell them to "get over it" after the fact? And will the university officials who take such a tack be paying for the resulting mental health treatment out of their own pockets, or will tuitions be raised?

[Jub]

And what about those with diagnosed mental illnesses that are a result of past trauma? Do you do the intelligent thing and offer in-depth information of things in the curriculum so that those individuals can avoid them or do you just tell them to "get over it" after the fact? And will the university officials who take such a tack be paying for the resulting mental health treatment out of their own pockets, or will tuitions be raised?

While I agree with the idea of creating detailed course outlines and attempting to warn people of topics that tend to trigger offense, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

When did somebody's mental issue become somebody else's problem? Universities, places of commerce, and the general public at large have no responsibility to look out for or cater to anybody's need to avoid certain situations which could trigger a mental breakdown. So why should they, aside from possibly losing a small percentage of students/customers care if they trigger somebody?

If anything the person who caused the initial harm should be paying for any treatments stemming from the trauma and beyond that it should be paid for by public mental health funding. I know that, especially in the US, this isn't the reality, but that's not the universities problem. That's solely a problem for the person with the mental issue.

Also, if we take this to the far end of the scale, should crowded places such as shopping malls and theaters need to cater to people who are anxious about crowds and could suffer a panic attack? Should they liable for panic attacks caused by their lack of ability to provide crowd free spaces for such people? If not, why should a university be any different?

[the atom]

When did somebody's mental issue become somebody else's problem?

Since....fucking forever?

Bluh bluh darn those Abbasid Ess Jay Doubleyous bluh bluh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... dieval_era

Universities, places of commerce, and the general public at large have no responsibility to look out for or cater to anybody's need to avoid certain situations which could trigger a mental breakdown

Uh, Universities are known to cause mental health issues in their students. They absolutely have an obligation to mitigate the damage they caused, to provide legal defence if nothing else (since in your world basic fucking empathy isn't reason enough to keep you from breaking into my house and stealing my laptop). 'Gee, we don't know why there's a dozen suicides every year' is not a conversation most universities want to have, which is why they provide extensive mental health services.

[Jub]

When did somebody's mental issue become somebody else's problem?

Since....fucking forever?

Bluh bluh darn those Abbasid Ess Jay Doubleyous bluh bluh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... dieval_era

That's the medical side of things and has nothing to do with a person or institution inflaming pre-existing mental trauma. This is entirely different than causing said trauma in the first place. Institutions are individuals have a responsibility not to create trauma in others and can face legal consequences for doing so. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a legal responsibility to avoid triggering ongoing issues caused by mental illness or past trauma

Universities, places of commerce, and the general public at large have no responsibility to look out for or cater to anybody's need to avoid certain situations which could trigger a mental breakdown

Uh, Universities are known to cause mental health issues in their students. They absolutely have an obligation to mitigate the damage they caused, to provide legal defence if nothing else (since in your world basic fucking empathy isn't reason enough to keep you from breaking into my house and stealing my laptop). 'Gee, we don't know why there's a dozen suicides every year' is not a conversation most universities want to have, which is why they provide extensive mental health services.

They can voluntarily take steps to prevent and lessen mental issues among the students and faculty and I fully agree with them doing so. You'll also note, from your having read my post which you have quoted, that I'm playing devil's advocate. As a person who suffers from depression myself, I'm all for taking steps to minimize things that cause harm.

However, again playing devil's advocate, from a legal standpoint there's nothing, outside of extreme circumstances and willful negligence, holding a university responsible for mental trauma caused other students, past mental trauma, and other issues that could cause somebody mental anguish. The same goes for a grocery store or a private individual. It's simply not on them to avoid topics which may aggravate existing mental issues.

[the atom]

That's the medical side of things and has nothing to do with a person or institution inflaming pre-existing mental trauma.

TIL Mental healthcare has nothing to do with not inflaming pre-existing mental trauma. Wait, no that's fucking stupid.

This is entirely different than causing said trauma in the first place. Institutions are individuals have a responsibility not to create trauma in others and can face legal consequences for doing so. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a legal responsibility to avoid triggering ongoing issues caused by mental illness or past trauma

So if I kick out your crutches and your fractured leg becomes more fractured, I'm off the hook? Nifty.

They can voluntarily take steps to prevent and lessen mental issues among the students and faculty and I fully agree with them doing so. You'll also note, from your having read my post which you have quoted, that I'm playing devil's advocate. As a person who suffers from depression myself, I'm all for taking steps to minimize things that cause harm.

However, again playing devil's advocate, from a legal standpoint there's nothing, outside of extreme circumstances and willful negligence, holding a university responsible for mental trauma caused other students, past mental trauma, and other issues that could cause somebody mental anguish. The same goes for a grocery store or a private individual. It's simply not on them to avoid topics which may aggravate existing mental issues.

I am highly skeptical that a university that produces numerous on-campus suicides will come under no scrutiny, legal or otherwise.

[Jub]

This is entirely different than causing said trauma in the first place. Institutions are individuals have a responsibility not to create trauma in others and can face legal consequences for doing so. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a legal responsibility to avoid triggering ongoing issues caused by mental illness or past trauma

So if I kick out your crutches and your fractured leg becomes more fractured, I'm off the hook? Nifty.

That would be willfully targeting a pre-existing injury and battery to boot. That's a bit different that mentioning that ducks are rapists in a biology class and trigger a victim of sexual abuse. This is especially true if you weren't explicitly warned that a person in your class had that as a potential issue.

Once again I'll ask you to address the issue of a crowded mall triggering a panic attack in a person with an anxiety disorder. Is that the mall's issue for not being a safe place for all shoppers? Well, probably not, especially because it's reasonable to expect that a mall may be crowded. Now in the case of animal rape coming up in a biology class, shouldn't a student who's done even cursory research on the subject know that this is likely to come up in such a class? In that case, why should it be on the university to protect a person from an expected hazard?

I am highly skeptical that a university that produces numerous on-campus suicides will come under no scrutiny, legal or otherwise.

You can be skeptical all you want, but I'm going to demand evidence that such investigations have happened and commonly result in rulings against universities. If such evidence can't be provided you'd best provide a retraction of that claim.

[Jub]

I've got another way to look at this as well.

As a person with depression, should I be able to demand that nobody say or do anything that could cause a worsening of my mood and possibly cause my depression to manifest more strongly? If somebody brings up something sad or mentions something which causes my mind to jump to something that makes me sad can they truly be said to have harmed me in a way which society should hold them responsible for? I would argue that they shouldn't be, after all, most people I'll interact with have no way of knowing I have a mental health issue and I don't expect those that do know me to walk on eggshells on my account.

I would argue that companies should respect mental health issues the same way they respect issues caused by a physical issue such as diabetes. I'd also argue that health plans should include as much support for these issues at they do for other forms of illness. I wouldn't argue that they should treat me differently when I'm at work the exception being me making it known I'm having an issue and need something to help me work through it. In that case, action would first need to be initiated by me as I wouldn't expect a co-worker or manager to know the signs of my personal flavor of depression well enough to offer meaningful help and would find it annoying if they tried to do so in spite of this fact.

[Crown]

But I'm probably overreacting to your callous disregard to others past trauma. I mean sure, my 16 year old male babysitter forced my 4yo self to give him a handjob (he called it "rubbing his peanut") and tried forcing me to give him fellatio when he came as he "took over" when he ejaculated, which I refused to do and tried to get away. For that he managed to hold my arms against my back with one arm/hand, took his other arm and put a plastic clothes pin on the head of my penis, then squeezed my scrotum until I almost passed out in pain.

He threatened to kill my cat and put her head on my pillow if I ever told anyone, plus it was all "normal things older kids do to younger kids so no one would care."
3 days later he came back to "visit" when my mom was home to make sure I said nothing. He gave me two 4 or 6 inch die-cast cars, one yellow the other blue, I assume as bribes. I never said anything until I was 13. I still had the cars. Any time I looked at them from 4 to 13 (when I smashed them to bits with an ax) I would bite the inside of my bottom lip until it bled.

I am unable to have the slightest bit of an intimate relationship with women, despite being decidedly heterosexual, because I panic the second anyone touches my genitals.

I'd love to be able to help children who went through what I did, but despite 21 years of therapy and counseling I have panic attacks when interacting with young children or talking about sexual abuse. Right now my hands are shaking.

But I guess that's just unfortunate.

No, what happened to you is horrific. What's unfortunate is that you get triggered by mundane things that no one else would.

In your instance a 'trigger' would be young children right? Do you think it reasonable for anyone anywhere upon first meeting you to think or believe that they need to warn you that you may interact with children? That's what we're discussing here, the idea that society at large is responsible to warn you about your potential triggers - which are quite frankly beyond the ability for any reasonable person to assume are triggers unless you tell every single person specifically.

And there's the rub; if you proactively discuss your issues with a lecturer and then ask them to inform you if their course is right for you that's fine. That's you being proactive in protecting yourself. However to put the onus on the lecturer to view every possible subject through the "what's the most fucked up thing one person could do to another that could cause someone to be traumatised that I might inadvertently cause a relapse of said trauma" before they speak is fucking absurd and un-workable.

[Crown]

It's really amusing when someone unironically presents South Park. It's been a while since I've seen it, but nearly every description of it I hear really comes across as "it's not cool to have strong feelings about anything, it's really cool to just believe everything is a golden mean".

I guess you missed it (but how since it was in the same post is a mystery) so I'll quote myself;

What this all boils down to is a difference of assumption on the term 'trigger warning'. Group 1 is assuming; hey people may have some trauma in their history which some subjects may make them uncomfortable, just issuing a general warning that this might happen before going into these subjects is just politeness, and why are you against politeness?

Group 2 is assuming; you want to empower crazies like mattress girl, or the girl who thought the word 'violate' would be a 'trigger' and didn't want it used during law school, or the black student who said addressing a white lecturer as 'Master' was 'triggering' him due to slavery, or the Yale students flipping the fuck out because a lecturer at Yale wouldn't pre-emptively ban Halloween costumes or the Missou nut jobs who made being run over by the Dean (we can go on here).

You realise that South Park are lampooning (rightfully so) the people I mentioned in my second paragraph right? You get that, right? You realise that these thought fascists actually exist and demand that society re-arrange its self to conform to them by using the same cover of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' that people who might actually have a valid reason to ask for these things?

[Crown]

This is entirely different than causing said trauma in the first place. Institutions are individuals have a responsibility not to create trauma in others and can face legal consequences for doing so. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a legal responsibility to avoid triggering ongoing issues caused by mental illness or past trauma

So if I kick out your crutches and your fractured leg becomes more fractured, I'm off the hook? Nifty.

Jesus Christ it's a sad day for your argument when I have to give you a better retort. What you should have said is "So universities aren't obliged to provide easy access to their buildings for the mobility impaired?"

It's a said fucking day when those of us arguing against the notion have to provide a better argument for those arguing for it.

[Flagg]

But I'm probably overreacting to your callous disregard to others past trauma. I mean sure, my 16 year old male babysitter forced my 4yo self to give him a handjob (he called it "rubbing his peanut") and tried forcing me to give him fellatio when he came as he "took over" when he ejaculated, which I refused to do and tried to get away. For that he managed to hold my arms against my back with one arm/hand, took his other arm and put a plastic clothes pin on the head of my penis, then squeezed my scrotum until I almost passed out in pain.

He threatened to kill my cat and put her head on my pillow if I ever told anyone, plus it was all "normal things older kids do to younger kids so no one would care."
3 days later he came back to "visit" when my mom was home to make sure I said nothing. He gave me two 4 or 6 inch die-cast cars, one yellow the other blue, I assume as bribes. I never said anything until I was 13. I still had the cars. Any time I looked at them from 4 to 13 (when I smashed them to bits with an ax) I would bite the inside of my bottom lip until it bled.

I am unable to have the slightest bit of an intimate relationship with women, despite being decidedly heterosexual, because I panic the second anyone touches my genitals.

I'd love to be able to help children who went through what I did, but despite 21 years of therapy and counseling I have panic attacks when interacting with young children or talking about sexual abuse. Right now my hands are shaking.

But I guess that's just unfortunate.

No, what happened to you is horrific. What's unfortunate is that you get triggered by mundane things that no one else would.

In your instance a 'trigger' would be young children right? Do you think it reasonable for anyone anywhere upon first meeting you to think or believe that they need to warn you that you may interact with children? That's what we're discussing here, the idea that society at large is responsible to warn you about your potential triggers - which are quite frankly beyond the ability for any reasonable person to assume are triggers unless you tell every single person specifically.

And there's the rub; if you proactively discuss your issues with a lecturer and then ask them to inform you if their course is right for you that's fine. That's you being proactive in protecting yourself. However to put the onus on the lecturer to view every possible subject through the "what's the most fucked up thing one person could do to another that could cause someone to be traumatised that I might inadvertently cause a relapse of said trauma" before they speak is fucking absurd and un-workable.

No, we're talking about university courses that may specifically deal with things that are common "triggers". And while I agree that the extreme cases of whining and mewling by dipshits who think these subjects shouldn't even be broached because it might make them uncomfortable are bewilderingly stupid, unworkable, and the total opposite of what higher learning is/should be about, I feel like the idea that no warning whatsoever for what should be obvious topics that could psychologically harm someone who's been through trauma (like subjects involving detailed descriptions of sexual violence, racism, and various forms of child abuse) and an attitude of "it's your problem, stop being a pussy and get over it" is equally unproductive and downright cuntish.

As far as my personal triggers, I don't expect people to assume or expect that I may have an issue with high anxiety being around young children. But TBH, with the way society is right now, I think any adult male should be nervous about interacting with, or especially being alone with, strangers prepubescent children given how paranoid (rightly or wrongly) society has become.
My personal issue is an irrational paranoia that I may be accused of something that I would flat out murder someone for doing to any child, and then the prior incident where I was abused at age 4 being used against me.

[Flagg]

This is entirely different than causing said trauma in the first place. Institutions are individuals have a responsibility not to create trauma in others and can face legal consequences for doing so. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a legal responsibility to avoid triggering ongoing issues caused by mental illness or past trauma

So if I kick out your crutches and your fractured leg becomes more fractured, I'm off the hook? Nifty.

Jesus Christ it's a sad day for your argument when I have to give you a better retort. What you should have said is "So universities aren't obliged to provide easy access to their buildings for the mobility impaired?"

It's a said fucking day when those of us arguing against the notion have to provide a better argument for those arguing for it.

That's a point I was about to make. It's like being against requirements for handicapped parking spaces, ramp access, and elevators for the physically disabled, at least in extreme cases. I think it's mainly just more of the same: A misunderstanding or lack of compassion for mental illness. I equate telling a clinically depressed person to "turn that frown upside down!", or "everyone gets sad, you just need to get over it.", with demanding a paraplegic or double amputee without prosthetics to get out of their wheelchair and "walk it off."