Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: If creationism is popular where you live that's not something for the Feds to fix.
Sure it is. The federal government should be able to step in and say "you are failing to meet the minimum standards, fix it now".
I don't think you can make a direct link between including creationism in a science curriculum and a decrease in science test scores Including additional information, even erroneous information, shouldn't bring down scores unless the curriculum is excluding important correct information. It would depend on how a school does it. I know plenty of people, myself included, who were exposed to creationism in Sunday school and evolution in public school and the exposure to the idea of creationism didn't prohibit us from getting good science grades and test scores in school. I personally don't see any need for creationism to be included in a science curriculum in public schools but it's not guaranteed to hurt student performance either.
Other's have dealt with the testing aspects quite well... one of the big issues I have with it, is that it creates uneven ground. This is because, in places in the Bible belt, if a government at any level, be it federal or state says that you can include creation myths in the science classrooms, then many teachers will take that to mean they can teach creationism to the exclusion of actual science.
This creates uneven ground by hamstringing the education, and abilities of basically an entire region of the country.
feeder wrote: This is only going to get worse with the TL,DR culture
If you can't give me all the info I need in one 12 point listicle, then imma vote with ma feels.
I agree that many can't be bothered to consistently look into anything with an explanation longer than a sentance. However, there is a certain wariness associated with reading very long articles about controversial issues--people wonder if all those words are there to obscure rather than explain. And that isn't entirely wrong. There is a ton of stuff going on in the world and if someone is addressing the general populace it's reasonable to expect that they would make things concise in order to get the point across efficiently, if their interest was in doing so.
I feel the exact opposite. Most of the issues we deal with and have address are complex. A simple way of describing them is simplistic. Twitter is great and all, but no way are you describing any position, or arguing for its merits and pitfalls in any certain number of characters. You are getting a headline. Headlines, by definition are extreme, read the actual story, the details are much more nuanced.if you are going to be bothered to live here and enjoy the rights of this count, then take the time to figure out its problems, origins and fixes. Otherwise, don't bother, please. And please don't vote.
I think I gave the wrong impression. I don't mean to say that twitter lines are an effective means of addressing people. What I mean to say is that more words, more details, more length is not automatically better and in many cases is worse if it exceeds what is needed to convey the message. And in that there is a grain of merit to 'TL,DR' even if the sentiment is largely a bad one.
For example; I don't need a 5-page report to say why building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it is a bad idea. Something as long as the average news article could properly cite the evidence and reasoning.
But you might need one if somebody says BS to your claim. You should know all the reasons, otherwise it just boils down to feels and Dakka postings.
I agree, it's important that the person writing the content in question has actually done the research, and ideally should include defences (like Ease E did above, for example). That people often write content without knowing what the hell they are talking about... Well that's another issue entirely.
jasper76 wrote: Side Note: I've recently discovered Dave Rubin and the Rubin Report, and his politics and outlooks match my own so closely that its kind of scary. Is anyone else a fan, and if so, could you recommend any other media figures coming from a similar angle?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: When you STILL have idiots out there trying to get the Christian version of creationsim taught in a science classroom, yeah... there's still turmoil in the education system. The people who think they are being moderate by saying "teach the controversy,"
I watched the beginning. It's not progressive that changed, it's him. Frankly I stopped when he started ranting about “Trigger warning”.
Let me remind you what “Trigger warning” are for. Those are just warning signs for people who lived a very traumatic experience (usually extremely stressful war situations, or sexual abuse) that the work they are attached too might contain events close to those they live, and therefore “trigger” very bad memories that can leave them in a state of great anguish.
How is that a bad thing, except for someone who is so self-centered he cannot bring himself to care for the well-being of others? How is that detrimental to anyone?
Dude's just slowing turning alt-right, the trigger warning stuff only became such a boogeyman after their intensive propaganda around it.
So long dude, if your big fight as a “progressive” is “Racists should be allowed to say racists things but people shouldn't be allowed to put Trigger Warning” I'll send all your opinions to the trash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: You could do that in a tweet. "Planes go over walls, Tunnels go under them. Wall is useless."
feth that tweet, you could do it with a haiku!
Planes go over wall
Big tunnels go under wall
So wall is useless
Ironic is that he decries "progressives" judging by groups and then proceeds to lump their behavior into one big ol' group.
It's a trend I have noticed among many alt-right, predominately white male commentators. They decry SJWs, triggers warnings, PC, and safe spaces and then immediately paint themselves as the put upon victim. Then let the vitriol and attacks flow. It's crap and reflects either a wildly misplaced insecurity (American white, Christian males are doing comparatively fine, as groups go), or intentional manipulation. Interestingly, there seems to be a faction of white male homosexuals who seem perfectly at ease lashing at other minority groups and seeking a place among political factions that haven't historically been very fond of their orientation. Politically, they seem more at ease with majority dominance tied to racial factors, which is super disturbing (though it would be naïve to expect any group not to have its opportunists). Some in the alt right seems more than happy to embrace them as it gives them cover, and is yet another tool with which to attack their political enemies. Much of this is superficial however, and much of the language directed at gays is only slightly above that used for minorities and non-Christians (as an aside, white identity groups aren't always very closely tied with Christianity and may embrace paganism, form example, but still express hostility towards homosexuals, minorities, etc.).
Japan’s government is pushing companies and investors to hand over details of their US investment plans so Shinzo Abe can deliver a “tweetable” figure to Donald Trump when they meet this week
...future sure ain't what it used to be eh ?
Foreign policy being partially shaped by whether the US President is likely to tweet about it
One wonders how the world will be governed if Twitter goes bust.
whembly wrote: Okay. You can thank Harry Reid for allowing Trump/GOP senators to push through their nominees.
No, we can thank the republican party for electing Trump, and rubber-stamping her nomination. Stop trying to deflect blame. It's like saying "The holocaust was the western power's fault, because of the reparations they made Germany pay."
I'm not absolving the blame on Trump/GOP Senators.
But, merely pointing out that Harry Reid nuking the filibuster is the reason *why* we're getting appointees like DeVos...
You're getting appointees like DeVos because Trump is appointing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Side Note: I've recently discovered Dave Rubin and the Rubin Report, and his politics and outlooks match my own so closely that its kind of scary. Is anyone else a fan, and if so, could you recommend any other media figures coming from a similar angle?
It would be better to read something from a different perspective.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 23:33:39
Ensis Ferrae wrote: When you STILL have idiots out there trying to get the Christian version of creationsim taught in a science classroom, yeah... there's still turmoil in the education system. The people who think they are being moderate by saying "teach the controversy,"
I watched the beginning. It's not progressive that changed, it's him. Frankly I stopped when he started ranting about “Trigger warning”.
Let me remind you what “Trigger warning” are for. Those are just warning signs for people who lived a very traumatic experience (usually extremely stressful war situations, or sexual abuse) that the work they are attached too might contain events close to those they live, and therefore “trigger” very bad memories that can leave them in a state of great anguish.
How is that a bad thing, except for someone who is so self-centered he cannot bring himself to care for the well-being of others? How is that detrimental to anyone?
Dude's just slowing turning alt-right, the trigger warning stuff only became such a boogeyman after their intensive propaganda around it.
So long dude, if your big fight as a “progressive” is “Racists should be allowed to say racists things but people shouldn't be allowed to put Trigger Warning” I'll send all your opinions to the trash.
I've said this before. Trigger warnings have a valid function in a therapeutic setting. But in the classroom, not so much.
And there's a valid argument to be made that prefacing challenging material with trigger warnings actually does more harm than good. You are basically infantilizing and coddling people and giving them special treatment, and not allowing them to work through their issues. Reality doesn't come with trigger warnings. You are not helping these people, you are keeping them in a state of prolonged underdevelopment, and because they have not worked through their issues, when real life hits them with uncomfortable materials, they will be less able to handle it due to lack of exposure.
If you are an individual who is so traumatized by something that happened to you, perhaps you should seek professional therapy before entering a challenging environment like college until you are better able to handle challenging material.
Ultimately I think trigger warnings are a pretty small issue, and will likely die out on there own. People on the whole don't like to be babied or pandered or condescend to.
It would be better to read something from a different perspective.
Thanks. I actually digest media from multiple perspectives, including perspectives I don't agree with. I just happen to agree with Dave Rubin on a lot of stuff. Particularly the importance of freedom of speech. If we lose that, we've lost what this American project is all about.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 23:53:16
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
According to WHO estimates, Mexico has a 99% measles vaccination rate while the USA is only 92%. If there is a growing measles problem in the USA it is caused by anti-vaxxers not getting their children vaccinated.
I used to think this was a problem that would solve itself. Anti-vaxxer children would catch measles and possibly die, which is sad but inevitable. At least the vaccinated children are protected. But vaccination is not 100% effective. Some vaccinated children would also die in an epidemic.
The western anti-vaxxing movement started in the UK and was promoted by the Daily Mail (a right wing newspaper.) The doctor who did the study linking the MMR vaccine to autism was so badly discredited that he was barred from the British Medical Council years ago.
I would not consider it codling for a professor to tell a class "the following images are very graphic" if the images are in fact very graphic. There's disturbing stuff I've seen in my classes, and just because it's a picture doesn't mean you can't experience an extreme physical response. I've seen pictures of the Holocaust that have caused students to throw up in the middle of class.
What is the issue people aren't being allowed to work through here? Basic human empathy? The given example is a professor warning Native American students about content that is religiously troubling (images of the dead are very very VERY bad in some Native cultures), and I'm not seeing how it's wrong for a teacher to warn their students of content if they know it might cause trouble.
HOUSTON — It’s looking as if 2017 could become the year when the anti-vaccination movement gains ascendancy in the United States and we begin to see a reversal of several decades in steady public health gains. The first blow will be measles outbreaks in America.
Measles is one of the most contagious and most lethal of all human diseases. A single person infected with the virus can infect more than a dozen unvaccinated people, typically infants too young to have received their first measles shot. Such high levels of transmissibility mean that when the percentage of children in a community who have received the measles vaccine falls below 90 percent to 95 percent, we can start to see major outbreaks, as in the 1950s when four million Americans a year were infected and 450 died. Worldwide, measles still kills around 100,000 children each year.
The myth that vaccines like the one that prevents measles are connected to autism has persisted despite rock-solid proof to the contrary. Donald Trump has given credence to such views in tweets and during a Republican debate, but as president he has said nothing to support vaccination opponents, so there is reason to hope that his views are changing.
However, a leading proponent of the link between vaccines and autism said he recently met with the president to discuss the creation of a presidential commission to investigate vaccine safety. Such a commission would be a throwback to the 2000s, when Representative Dan Burton of Indiana held fruitless hearings and conducted investigations on this topic. And a documentary alleging a conspiracy at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” has recently been shown around the country.
As a scientist leading global efforts to develop vaccines for neglected poverty-related diseases like schistosomiasis and Chagas’ disease, and as the dad of an adult daughter with autism and other disabilities, I’m worried that our nation’s health will soon be threatened because we have not stood up to the pseudoscience and fake conspiracy claims of this movement.
Texas, where I live and work, may be the first state to once again experience serious measles outbreaks. As of last fall, more than 45,000 children here had received nonmedical exemptions for their school vaccinations. A political action committee is raising money to protect this “conscientious exemption” loophole and to instruct parents on how to file for it. As a result, some public school systems in the state are coming dangerously close to the threshold when measles outbreaks can be expected, and a third of students at some private schools are unvaccinated.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has produced a 21-page document listing all of the studies clearly showing there is no link between vaccines and autism, in addition to more recent epidemiological studies involving hundreds of thousands of children or pregnant women that also refute any association. A study of infant rhesus monkeys also shows that vaccination does not produce neurobiological changes in the brain.
Vaccines are clearly not the reason children develop autism. So what is? There is strong evidence that genetics play a role, and that defects in the brain of children on the autism spectrum occur during pregnancy. Exposure during early pregnancy to particular chemicals in the environment or infections could be involved. Researchers have suggested that damage could be done by the drugs thalidomide, misoprostol and valproic acid; by exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos; and by infection of the mother with the rubella virus.
This is what we need to be focusing on, not the myth that vaccines cause autism. Yet I fear that such myths will be used to justify new rounds of hearings or unwarranted investigations of federal agencies, including the C.D.C. This would only distract attention from these agencies’ crucial work, and the real needs of families with children on the autism spectrum, such as mental health services, work-entry programs for adults and support for the research being done by the National Institutes of Health.
Today, parents in Texas have to live in fear that something as simple as a trip to the mall or the library could expose their babies to measles and that a broader outbreak could occur. Perpetuating phony theories about vaccines and autism isn’t going to help them — and it’s not going to help children on the autism spectrum, either.
There's also the issue that illegal aliens are bringing in formerly vaxxed out diseases. Hooping cough, TB, and measles are again a thing here because of that.
That's why there's calls from medical professional to require guest to bring immunization records, and vaccinate at ports of entries as needed.
Something when detaining illegals... at least vaccinate them before releasing them back to the public.
I'd be 100% OK with that (with their consent of course). Helps us, helps them, for a minimum of cost.
Their consent. They consented when they crossed our border illegally.
Then your daughter should get a mandatory pap-smear when she gets pulled over, because cervical cancer is a public health risk.
jasper76 wrote: And there's a valid argument to be made that prefacing challenging material with trigger warnings actually does more harm than good. You are basically infantilizing and coddling people and giving them special treatment, and not allowing them to work through their issues.
This is undiluted bs. It gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to read/watch/listen to the thing you are presenting them. It gives them control.
jasper76 wrote: You are not helping these people, you are keeping them in a state of prolonged underdevelopment, and because they have not worked through their issues, when real life hits them with uncomfortable materials, they will be less able to handle it due to lack of exposure.
Underdevelopment? You are saying that people that have lived traumatizing experiences are underdeveloped? You are saying that the war veteran, or the sexual abuse survivor, is underdeveloped? The veteran then need to relive the war over and over again to develop back into a full human? And the sexual assault survivor need to relive the sexual abuse over and over again to develop back into a full human?
This guy is allergic to pollen. We should drown him in pollen so he becomes resistant to it by massive exposure.
jasper76 wrote: If you are an individual who is so traumatized by something that happened to you, perhaps you should seek professional therapy before entering a challenging environment like college until you are better able to handle challenging material.
Yup, it's easy! You just come in, get instant help subsidized by the awesome healthcare system, and in one day, two days at most, you are instantly and completely cured! Now seeing war image or images of sexual assault doesn't affect you at all! Likely this all comes from watching snuff movies over and over again. It's like magic, except with magic instead of science!
Frankly, unless you back your claims with actual, non-partisan medical research, I'm not inclined to take anything you say seriously. And I feel it's pretty sad that PTSD have become a “partisan” thing. Damn, Rambo was about PTSD and it was released in freaking 1982, so 5 years before I was born. How come it has recently become so controversial?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
LordofHats wrote: I would not consider it codling for a professor to tell a class "the following images are very graphic" if the images are in fact very graphic. There's disturbing stuff I've seen in my classes, and just because it's a picture doesn't mean you can't experience an extreme physical response. I've seen pictures of the Holocaust that have caused students to throw up in the middle of class.
What is the issue people aren't being allowed to work through here? Basic human empathy? The given example is a professor warning Native American students about content that is religiously troubling (images of the dead are very very VERY bad in some Native cultures), and I'm not seeing how it's wrong for a teacher to warn their students of content if they know it might cause trouble.
Trigger Warning? More like basic human decency.
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think. A Native American is no less fundamentally capable of handling challenging and disturbing material than anyone else. At least I don't think so.
jasper76 wrote: And there's a valid argument to be made that prefacing challenging material with trigger warnings actually does more harm than good. You are basically infantilizing and coddling people and giving them special treatment, and not allowing them to work through their issues.
This is undiluted bs. It gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to read/watch/listen to the thing you are presenting them. It gives them control.
Are you even aware of the degree to which you are infantilizing people here?
Serious question: do you think the military should be in the business of offering trigger warnings to people during training before showing them challenging material? Do you think that would be helpful when a soldier hits the battlefield for the first time? I'm seriously wondering how far the reach of this thinking goes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/09 00:00:00
The only time I ever felt 'coddled' in a classroom is when my extremely conservative history teacher put censor bars over pictures of statues in senior year of high school.
jasper76 wrote: Ultimately I think trigger warnings are a pretty small issue, and will likely die out on there own. People on the whole don't like to be babied or pandered or condescend to.
Ultimately, I think people that dislike trigger warnings are a pretty big issue, because it's quite revealing about a mindset where problems that don't affect oneself personally are dismissed as negligible and even their evocation is sufficient to draw ire and bile. Those problems, you say, are not real problems, and trying to help with them is “babying” or “condescending”. Of course your problems are real problems and helping with them is very important.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think.
Some people believe that a soul cannot rest if the body is on display, and that includes displaying a corpse in still photography. That whole thing about Native Americans thinking cameras steal souls is kind of a myth, but it came from a basic element of some Native traditions concerning what happens when we die (particularly those in the American South West).
It's not infantilizing them because "they can't handle dead people." They can handle dead people just fine. Some literally think a soul is doomed to wander the earth until the body is "done and gone", which makes showing (even producing) images of corpses troubling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/09 00:04:14
jasper76 wrote: You are not helping these people, you are keeping them in a state of prolonged underdevelopment, and because they have not worked through their issues, when real life hits them with uncomfortable materials, they will be less able to handle it due to lack of exposure.
Underdevelopment? You are saying that people that have lived traumatizing experiences are underdeveloped? You are saying that the war veteran, or the sexual abuse survivor, is underdeveloped? The veteran then need to relive the war over and over again to develop back into a full human? And the sexual assault survivor need to relive the sexual abuse over and over again to develop back into a full human?
OK, "underdeveloped" was a bad choice of words. I'd recommend investigating cognitive behavior therapy, which from what I've read is the most effective therapy for traumatized individuals, and deals with controlled exposure to offensive stimuli and strategies to deal with the emotions they stir up. If someone is so traumatized that things challenging material they experience in a classroom would be extremely upsetting, I'd recommend investigating this type of therapy for them, as well.
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think.
Some people believe that a soul cannot rest if the body is on display, and that includes displaying a corpse in still photography. That whole thing about Native Americans thinking cameras steal souls is kind of a myth, but it came from a basic element of some Native traditions concerning what happens when we die (particularly those in the American South West).
It's not infantilizing them because "they can't handle dead people." They can handle dead people just fine. Some literally think a soul is doomed to wander the earth until the body is "done and gone", which makes showing (even producing) images of corpses troubling.
I believe they can handle a picture of a dead body. I truly do.
jasper76 wrote: Serious question: do you think the military should be in the business of offering trigger warnings to people during training before showing them challenging material?
What do you mean by challenging? I'll let you know that the military usually deals with PTSD from soldiers that have already served and got them during their service, because they don't usually enroll people that already suffer from PTSD. And I'm not sure if having PTSD gives you a discharge, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Because it sure as hell impacts your ability to do your job on the battlefield.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
jasper76 wrote: Ultimately I think trigger warnings are a pretty small issue, and will likely die out on there own. People on the whole don't like to be babied or pandered or condescend to.
Ultimately, I think people that dislike trigger warnings are a pretty big issue, because it's quite revealing about a mindset where problems that don't affect oneself personally are dismissed as negligible and even their evocation is sufficient to draw ire and bile. Those problems, you say, are not real problems, and trying to help with them is “babying” or “condescending”. Of course your problems are real problems and helping with them is very important.
I never once said their problems are not real problems. Now you are putting words in my mouth, and being disingenuous.
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think.
Some people believe that a soul cannot rest if the body is on display, and that includes displaying a corpse in still photography. That whole thing about Native Americans thinking cameras steal souls is kind of a myth, but it came from a basic element of some Native traditions concerning what happens when we die (particularly those in the American South West).
It's not infantilizing them because "they can't handle dead people." They can handle dead people just fine. Some literally think a soul is doomed to wander the earth until the body is "done and gone", which makes showing (even producing) images of corpses troubling.
I believe they can handle a picture of a dead body. I truly do.
Here's the thing, it doesn't fething matter what you believe when it comes to how they will react because you are not them and have no idea what they have gone through, what their beliefs are or how it will affect them. And if they are okay with seeing images of a dead body then they can look but if they are not then they have been warned and so can take precautions.
Nobody loses anything by being warned of potentially disturbing material unless they choose to not look. Who are you to decide that they should not have a choice?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/09 00:13:54
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Maybe they can, but that should be their decision not some choice made by someone who not only isn't aware of their religious beliefs but chooses to wholly disregard them.
jasper76 wrote: Serious question: do you think the military should be in the business of offering trigger warnings to people during training before showing them challenging material?
What do you mean by challenging? I'll let you know that the military usually deals with PTSD from soldiers that have already served and got them during their service, because they don't usually enroll people that already suffer from PTSD. And I'm not sure if having PTSD gives you a discharge, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Because it sure as hell impacts your ability to do your job on the battlefield.
I've been using the term "challenging" to mean "potentially upsetting".
If someone wants to recover from trauma at their own pace on their own terms what is the harm? Maybe I don't feel like reliving my trauma today, I already had a gak enough day as it is.
The inclusion of trigger warnings seem like a very silly reason to decide that "the left" has failed.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
jasper76 wrote: I believe they can handle a picture of a dead body. I truly do.
I am pretty sure everyone can handle NSFW stuff too. And yet we still have all those NSFW tag everywhere, how much infantilizing is that? Destroy the evil NSFW tag now!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think.
Some people believe that a soul cannot rest if the body is on display, and that includes displaying a corpse in still photography. That whole thing about Native Americans thinking cameras steal souls is kind of a myth, but it came from a basic element of some Native traditions concerning what happens when we die (particularly those in the American South West).
It's not infantilizing them because "they can't handle dead people." They can handle dead people just fine. Some literally think a soul is doomed to wander the earth until the body is "done and gone", which makes showing (even producing) images of corpses troubling.
I believe they can handle a picture of a dead body. I truly do.
Here's the thing, it doesn't fething matter what you believe when it comes to how they will react. And if they are okay with seeing images of a dead body then they can look but if they are not then they have been warned and so can take precautions.
So this is about shielding them, protecting their feelings...protections they will hardly ever encounter in real adult life. How is this not infantilizing them?
jasper76 wrote: I believe they can handle a picture of a dead body. I truly do.
I am pretty sure everyone can handle NSFW stuff too. And yet we still have all those NSFW tag everywhere, how much infantilizing is that? Destroy the evil NSFW tag now!
Not analogous. NSFW tags are explicitly to help people from getting fired and losing their livelihoods for breaking rules. It's self-evident in the name "Not Safe For Work"...notice it's not "Not Safe For You"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/09 00:18:08
It is about giving people the option of protecting themselves.
Why does everything need to be raw and in your face? Do you find that you learn economics better when your teacher shows you the broken remains of a stockbroker who jumped out of a window after the Wall Street Crash?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
LordofHats wrote: I would not consider it codling for a professor to tell a class "the following images are very graphic" if the images are in fact very graphic. There's disturbing stuff I've seen in my classes, and just because it's a picture doesn't mean you can't experience an extreme physical response. I've seen pictures of the Holocaust that have caused students to throw up in the middle of class.
What is the issue people aren't being allowed to work through here? Basic human empathy? The given example is a professor warning Native American students about content that is religiously troubling (images of the dead are very very VERY bad in some Native cultures), and I'm not seeing how it's wrong for a teacher to warn their students of content if they know it might cause trouble.
Trigger Warning? More like basic human decency.
You are infantilizing Native Americans here, I think. A Native American is no less fundamentally capable of handling challenging and disturbing material than anyone else. At least I don't think so.
jasper76 wrote: And there's a valid argument to be made that prefacing challenging material with trigger warnings actually does more harm than good. You are basically infantilizing and coddling people and giving them special treatment, and not allowing them to work through their issues.
This is undiluted bs. It gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to read/watch/listen to the thing you are presenting them. It gives them control.
Are you even aware of the degree to which you are infantilizing people here?
Serious question: do you think the military should be in the business of offering trigger warnings to people during training before showing them challenging material? Do you think that would be helpful when a soldier hits the battlefield for the first time? I'm seriously wondering how far the reach of this thinking goes.
It depends on the nature of the material and its relevance to one's cultural background. As a simple example, many alt-right white men are extremely disturbed by information about female equality, etc, which most men find completely normal and unworthy of any particular comment.
So this is about shielding them, protecting their feelings...protections they will hardly ever encounter in real life. How is this not infantilizing them?
What sort of things does "real life" throw at you on a day to day basis that would likely get a trigger warning in some liberal college?
Trigger warnings get put on stories about rape, death, violence. You know, stuff that traumatises you in "real life".
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
So this is about shielding them, protecting their feelings...protections they will hardly ever encounter in real life. How is this not infantilizing them?
It's called not being a dick.
You might turn a corner some day and find a woman who jumped from her fifth story apartment window and it's going to be shocking and disconcerting on some level no matter how prepared for "real life" you are. If you're in a place as personable as a classroom, and are aware that some of your students have religious complications with something you're about to do, it's simply decent to show some god damn respect and acknowledgement that someone might have hang ups you don't.
If we called it a 'not making you an unwitting participant in dooming someone's soul to walk the earth for eternity' warning instead of a trigger warning, would you feel better about it? That seems to be the gist of what Hats was getting at with the religious beliefs summary.
Their consent. They consented when they crossed our border illegally. 
.
