Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Shrap

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes lets not 'coddle' rape victims suffering from PTSD, by warning them about potentially deeply unsettling events in what they're reading, that are highly likely to trigger their traumatic memories...

No. This is a black and white situation after all, where the above is similar to an Evangelical Christian, taking petty offence, to finding an evil Atheist in his book.

Hadn't read that before I posted. Thanks. I'd say Jank is the only one missing the empathy function in this discussion.

Can we quantify / qualify offence? Is it even 'offence' that we're really discussing here? Is it too vague a term when discussing the lines of PTSD trauma etc?

Let's not forget this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-IX69mjpcA

I don't believe that it is 'offence' that is being discussed tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shrap

I get all those points. However, we can clearly manage to understand that the graphic description of a rape is pretty bloody hard going and potentially a bit too hard core for many people. There is a line to be drawn here, no? Graphic descriptions of murder have become commonplace, but it should be incredibly shocking reading. The Great Gatsby and Mrs. Galloway are ridiculous benchmarks.

Look, I'm always saying I don't have the right not to be offended, but I would like the right to choose whether I am by knowing something about the content of a piece of writing beforehand. Turtwig showed those rather handy little symbols that indicated the kind of content that could be hugely offensive to some. What's the harm in at least giving a heads up? I can't see that as limiting discussion. Here we are discussing this, for example and I have chosen to enter into a discussion about triggering experiences even though I could potentially become offended or upset.

Can't the literature courses include a disclaimer? "All ye who enter here, beware of triggering" for example. I fail to see the harm in that. It may toughen up a few, and offload some who are too sensitive for the discussions. Fine.

"Filipovic is correct that the trend toward protecting students from potentially upsetting material is antithetical to the educational mission of a university" - Why should they be protected? Just give them the tools to protect themselves, if necessary. A pictorial symbol indicating the level of violence/fear/etc. should do it. They can choose then. I quite agree that course literature shouldn't be decided based on potential upset. That would be stupid.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

You could just as easily argue conservatives do it with good intentions too. Most people have good intentions the goods they deliver just happen be evil and they don't know it.

They could, but conservative good intentions are geared towards protecting the unearned privilege of the few over the rights of the many. That cannot be said about left-wingers (of whom parties such as the US Democrat party are manifestly not, hence why I hate the increasingly common conflation of left-wing and liberal parties, liberal parties are parties of the right who don't want to impose social mores on others not left-wing parties).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

So, if one sees trigger warnings in classic literature as moody coddling adults then you are some monster who can't empathise with rape victims....
Lets keep some perspective shall we?

Shrap

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm in agreement with you now actually. It does seem patently ridiculous to go back over literature and label it according to content. Smacks a bit of Noddy and Big Ears being reprinted to exclude them sharing a bed or mentioning the dodgy Golliwogs who live in the woods....

Shrap

jank wrote: »

So, if one sees trigger warnings in classic literature as moody coddling adults then you are some monster who can't empathise with rape victims....
Lets keep some perspective shall we?

I was genuinely talking about graphic descriptions of rape. I wish (personally) they did come with a warning. Can't see it for yourself, no?

jank

Shrap wrote: »

Look, I'm always saying I don't have the right not to be offended, but I would like the right to choose whether I am by knowing something about the content of a piece of writing beforehand. Turtwig showed those rather handy little symbols that indicated the kind of content that could be hugely offensive to some. What's the harm in at least giving a heads up? I can't see that as limiting discussion. Here we are discussing this, for example and I have chosen to enter into a discussion about triggering experiences even though I could potentially become offended or upset.

Wouldn't this be argument be nulled by the very fact an adult student would be taking a University course in English Literature, discussing and examine books which contains a varied amount of themes? Would they already not know that in advance?
Like, a medical student will know that he has to be around dead bodies while he learns anatomy. If being around dead bodies creeps you out, then maybe find another course. No one is forcing a student in any class for that matter, they are free to leave.

What do you think of the points raised in the video?

Shrap wrote: »

Can't the literature courses include a disclaimer? "All ye who enter here, beware of triggering" for example. I fail to see the harm in that. It may toughen up a few, and offload some who are too sensitive for the discussions. Fine.

Again, its a University...?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Shrap wrote: »

I was genuinely talking about graphic descriptions of rape. I wish (personally) they did come with a warning. Can't see it for yourself, no?

Well rape may well be a Trigger for you, something else may be a trigger for me. Once you start introducing them and making them mandatory which has not happened 'yet'.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Add in lawyers to that list and I'd imagine it would be difficult to get through criminal law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Correct, like in that video debate, someone opposed to the motion (who was also opposed to trigger warnings as well) tried to make the point that a private University is within their right to be the most sensitive and PC University around, would the other side oppose this? The response was simple and effective.

"They would cease to be a University because they could literally discuss nothing."

robindch

jank wrote: »

Good video. Worth a watch.

It's almost an hour and a half long.

Any chance you could point out a few moments which you found especially shocking?

jank

robindch wrote: »

It's almost an hour and a half long.

Any chance you could point out a few moments which you found especially shocking?

Well some of them have been mentioned already here.

In addition there was the case of a christian social worker student who was more or less threatened with disciplinary action by a University because she refused to sign a petition in favor of gay marriage as it was 'part of the curriculum'.

There was the censoring of a transcript by a speaker who used the N word, not in the racist way but in the way to make people think about free speech in relation to offence but was lost on some people who could not see past their own small mindedness.

Many examples of pro-life displays being destroyed by other students and professors (so much for free speech, one was even ridden down by a car!).

Trigger warning discussion from 1:02 on wards, or you could of course just watch it like myself and Black Oil.

Nodin

Could we change the title of this thread to "Shit US college students do?"

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Could we change the title of this thread to "Shit US college students do?"

The thread title is one of the best things about this thread! Genuinely funny.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

Many examples of pro-life displays being destroyed by other students and professors (so much for free speech

These displays are dishonest (usually displaying stillbirths not abortions) and fully intended to cause guilt and trauma to women who are, or have, experienced crisis pregnancy.

There are enough private places where religious nuts can spread that brand of hatred and bigotry without doing it in public places.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These displays are dishonest (usually displaying stillbirths not abortions) and fully intended to cause guilt and trauma to women who are, or have, experienced crisis pregnancy. There are enough private places where religious nuts can spread that brand of hatred and bigotry without doing it in public places.

Soo... free speech only for people we agree with then?

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

These displays are dishonest (usually displaying stillbirths not abortions) and fully intended to cause guilt and trauma to women who are, or have, experienced crisis pregnancy.

There are enough private places where religious nuts can spread that brand of hatred and bigotry without doing it in public places.

Animal rights groups for example use similar tactics with shock pics , I wouldn't be inclined to attack them in public though and would respect their freedom to protest their position.
If anything the more shock tactics used by any group the more rediculous their position as they obviously think that emotional arguments are stronger than rational arguments.

pH

Absolam wrote: »

Soo... free speech only for people we agree with then?

Surely there has to be some distinction on what can be shown in public to everyone, and what can be distributed in a more closed forum.

For example do you believe that in a truly free society anyone would be free to show hardcore pornography in public that others can't avoid?

It strikes me there's a difficult balance to be struck here, along with an awful lot of hypocrisy - take the whole images of Muhammed thing, I've no reason not to believe that at least some Muslims are sincere when they say that they find them offensive. The standard response to this has been "free speech" and summed up by Fry's "offended? so f*cking what" - well fine, but hardcore porn is banned here (Ireland/boards.ie/A&A) - because some find it offensive - we're quite happy to see our bans enforced.

Now because of the way the human brain works in dealing with cognitive dissonance, on reading the above you'll immediate construct as number of reasons why this is totally acceptable to your worldview - "It's the A&A forum not T&A hehe" or "it's not that we find pornography offensive that it's banned its because ..." well no, take a step back we're happy to offend others, but if a ban suits us well then that's just fine too.

pH

pH wrote: »

Surely there has to be some distinction on what can be shown in public to everyone, and what can be distributed in a more closed forum.

For example do you believe that in a truly free society anyone would be free to show hardcore pornography in public that others can't avoid?

It strikes me there's a difficult balance to be struck here, along with an awful lot of hypocrisy - take the whole images of Muhammed thing, I've no reason not to believe that at least some Muslims are sincere when they say that they find them offensive. The standard response to this has been "free speech" and summed up by Fry's "offended? so f*cking what" - well fine, but hardcore porn is banned here (Ireland/boards.ie/A&A) - because some find it offensive - we're quite happy to see our bans enforced.

Now because of the way the human brain works in dealing with cognitive dissonance, on reading the above you'll immediate construct as number of reasons why this is totally acceptable to your worldview - "It's the A&A forum not T&A hehe" or "it's not that we find pornography offensive that it's banned its because ..." well no, take a step back we're happy to offend others, but if a ban suits us well then that's just fine too.

Is that the reason for the ban?

edit: Appears close actually
(might/must have been updated since then though!)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

pH wrote: »

Surely there has to be some distinction on what can be shown in public to everyone, and what can be distributed in a more closed forum. For example do you believe that in a truly free society anyone would be free to show hardcore pornography in public that others can't avoid?

I think the key to your question there is 'that others can't avoid'. If it's a public space, others can avoid it; one is free to speak, the other is free not to listen (or look). Yes different societies draw different lines about what is acceptable to be shown nonetheless, but really, why should it be drawn at abortion?

pH wrote: »

It strikes me there's a difficult balance to be struck here, along with an awful lot of hypocrisy - take the whole images of Muhammed thing, I've no reason not to believe that at least some Muslims are sincere when they say that they find them offensive. The standard response to this has been "free speech" and summed up by Fry's "offended? so f*cking what" - well fine, but hardcore porn is banned here (Ireland/boards.ie/A&A) - because some find it offensive - we're quite happy to see our bans enforced.

Is it banned because some find it offensive, or because some (or many) believe it has a negative impact on peoples lives and society? It's banned because some find it offensive seems to be answer lacking much thought I think.

pH wrote: »

Now because of the way the human brain works in dealing with cognitive dissonance, on reading the above you'll immediate construct as number of reasons why this is totally acceptable to your worldview - "It's the A&A forum not T&A hehe" or "it's not that we find pornography offensive that it's banned its because ..." well no, take a step back we're happy to offend others, but if a ban suits us well then that's just fine too.

I don't know... that doesn't sound very true either.

Gbear

Absolam wrote: »

Is it banned because some find it offensive, or because some (or many) believe it has a negative impact on peoples lives and society? It's banned because some find it offensive seems to be answer lacking much thought I think.
I don't know... that doesn't sound very true either.

Assuming that it has a negative impact on people's lives doesn't seem to have much thought behind it either.

Allowing the public display of hardcore pornography is hardly high on anyone's list of suppressed freedoms, but if the only thing preventing it is that society thinks it's icky then it probably is a case of hypocrisy.

pH

Absolam wrote: »

I think the key to your question there is 'that others can't avoid'. If it's a public space, others can avoid it; one is free to speak, the other is free not to listen (or look). Yes different societies draw different lines about what is acceptable to be shown nonetheless, but really, why should it be drawn at abortion?

Is it banned because some find it offensive, or because some (or many) believe it has a negative impact on peoples lives and society? It's banned because some find it offensive seems to be answer lacking much thought I think.
I don't know... that doesn't sound very true either.

It's not "very true" but the first thing you did was justify your double standards for banning some offensive things but not others,

Allowing the public display of hardcore pornography is hardly high on anyone's list of suppressed freedoms, but if the only thing preventing it is that society thinks it's icky then it probably is a case of hypocrisy.

I'm not just talking about "Ireland" as a state, take this forum and boards.ie, you can post pictures Muslims find offensive ("so f.cking what") but a picture of a man's cock up another man's asshole would get immediately deleted and the poster likely banned. Even if you could prove that the act shown was consensual and both men were happy with the photograph to be shown.

You're either for free speech and the right to offend or you're not, except as with most people who are just for their right to offend and not so much for others to offend them

It was why I found the whole "OMG THE PAPERS WON'T PRINT THE PICS OF MOHAMMED" so hysterical, there's a long list of pictures the Guardian won't put on its front page "because offence" - I don't see what's so special about those cartoons in that respect.

Absolam

pH wrote: »

It's not "very true" but the first thing you did was justify your double standards for banning some offensive things but not others,.

What double standard? I never I said I was in favour of any restriction of free speech, just that I understand there may be more to a society's decision to limit some expression than 'some people may be offended'.

pH wrote: »

I'm not just talking about "Ireland" as a state, take this forum and boards.ie, you can post pictures Muslims find offensive ("so f.cking what") but a picture of a man's cock up another man's asshole would get immediately deleted and the poster likely banned. Even if you could prove that the act shown was consensual and both men were happy with the photograph to be shown.

Well, boards.ie is a private site, so it's pretty much subject to the whims of those who own and control it, which require no justification. Ireland, on the other hand, requires some justification for its controls, which is generally the prevailing mood of the public.

pH wrote: »

You're either for free speech and the right to offend or you're not, except as with most people who are just for their right to offend and not so much for others to offend them

Meh... I think most people are for it up to the point they think is appropriate, which is probably the point at which they would be offended and therefore all other right thinking people would too. That's just human nature.

Brian Shanahan

Nodin wrote: »

Could we change the title of this thread to "Shit US college students do?"

Or better yet "Jank moans about nothing very interesting or important."