
In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas - jckt
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html
======
tunesmith
It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I
remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a
relationship with someone who would get angry _at_ people for expressing input
that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I
didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the
producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it
affected me (an effect the producer would have had no way of knowing ahead of
time). It should always be fine for an affected person to remove themselves
from a situation that feels unsafe to them, but it shouldn't necessarily mean
additional regulation.

I am totally in support of educating people to speak sensitively in the sense
of it meaning not to speak flippantly or hurtfully about charged subjects -
for instance, I will still object to jokes about prison rape - but for it to
progress to the point of avoiding provocative subjects entirely, that just
seems like anti-progress and willful ignorance.

~~~
cheatsheet
I am sort of on the fence on this. On one hand, I do not like pursuing
ignorance. On the other, I do not objectively know the difference between a
mind that is repeatedly triggered by random noise that can immediately bring
my mind back into a state of flipping between catatonia and hyper-
stress/hyper-alert, and a mind that is able to control information flow and
pursue it's goals (such as a phd and happiness in life).

I've been in recovery from realizing and recognizing the effects of my trauma
for almost 4 years now. You talking about rape does not bring me back into the
mental state it once did. But I don't know how I got here, besides through
time (and sheer determination to be the best I can be, and not let my past
haunt me). But that said, if you reminded me of my abuser, I don't think I
could control my reaction so much. And hyper anxiety / reactive shutdown is
not something that is easy to remove oneself from.

I think your attitude is very intelligent, but I think you need to add a
little more empathetic wiggle room for things you may not understand entirely.

~~~
dean
> I think you need to add a little more empathetic wiggle room for things you
> may not understand entirely.

You may be right that victims of trauma are not entirely understood. Even so,
you seem to be suggesting that society _should_ "avoid provocative subjects
entirely" and "pursue ignorance", as the parent puts it, to avoid upsetting
victims of trauma. In the end, is that a strategy that will actually help any
of us?

~~~
cheatsheet
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm in a forum talking about things related to my
trauma, aren't I? Shouldn't that be triggering me into a horrible downward
spiral, if I was suggesting this?

I got better. Some people are still in the process of getting better. I am
asking for empathy and compassion for those people, if you have the capacity
to recognize that they may need it. Otherwise, just do your best to be a
decent human being.

------
eigenvector
What is most disturbing about this trend is the concept that some arguments
are unassailable, that some ideas are not up for debate and discussion. "Safe
space", while an admirable concept at first glance, has been co-opted by
people who just want a rhetorical nuclear option to protect weak or unfounded
arguments.

It quickly becomes a race to the bottom to see what is the crassest idea you
can successfully firewall by accusing its opponents of oppression.

Ironically, this concept meant to bring to the fore the lived experiences of
individual people (not an invalid goal when discussing social science topics)
is most commonly used to suppress and silence - wait for it - the lived
experiences of others.

~~~
Gifford
You may be confusing "isn't interested in disucssing it with you" with "isn't
up for discussion at all". Maybe you bring less to the conversation than you
think you do, in some cases.

------
littletimmy
This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty
chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture.

These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and
ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take
any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college
(basically extended high school) whenever they hear something tangentially
against their worldview.

The assertion that a discussion of "rape culture" can be "too distressing"
such as to require a trauma room is absolutely ridiculous. A part of it, I'm
sure, is that the administrator needs to justify her unnecessary employment by
creating work.

What farce.

~~~
tunesmith
I've always rolled my eyes at complaints about the "trophy generation" (Adam
Carolla had a particularly brain-deadening rant about it), but this article
honestly did get me wondering about how people like that would be able to cope
with actual professional atmospheres after college. On the other hand, this
article is an editorial that doesn't really try to quantify the problem, so
maybe "people like that" aren't really a measurable population.

It's probably not so much the "trauma rooms" that are the problem, as it is
using them as reason to censor the "traumatic discussions".

It'd be nice if there were more mechanisms in place to both teach and
encourage actual reasoned discussion aka dialectic. There's too much debate
out there, too much ethos and pathos crowding out logos.

~~~
washadjeffmad
They've been taught, whether or not they realize it, how to morally ransom
others, guiltlessly. To ignore them is to marginalize them, to disagree with
them is to threaten them, and to oppose them is assault. It's incredibly
hypocritical and self-centered behavior, especially for an adult.

And what I fear is that they'll shape whatever environments that will allow it
because everyone else has kowtowed to their feelings, and if you don't let
them have their way, you'll become the toxic old guard who enables the
victimizers-- quite a step away from "big, fat meanie head".

In a business environment, after making their way into a managerial role, it
may mean over-promoting people who agree with them and reassigning those who
don't. It might be some form of constant ostracism, like not getting invited
along with everyone else to drinks after work, having negative rumors
circulated about what a secret creep you are ("I heard they tried to pick up
someone who was drunk." "I'd believe it, they don't think rape is real." "What
a shitlord.", or not being put on jobs you're best at. And if you aren't
having work that could make you look better withheld, you might have your
career slowly poisoned by having things put in your file that indicate you're
not a good candidate for promotion, which is all for the best, since you could
be a closet oppressor who undoes a lifetime of progressive equality.

That's a bit hyperbolic, but those are all things that I've witnessed
individually in varying degrees over the years, with different labels. It can
be incredibly difficult to hold people to task for their actions, especially
if they're not forthright in what they're doing and you're in the minority.

Perhaps it help to solve this problem if we included one more warning about
life early on: "Safety is not guaranteed."

~~~
tunesmith
"To ignore them is to marginalize them, to disagree with them is to threaten
them, and to oppose them is assault."

Sort of off topic, but what's interesting is that this sounds a lot like
indicators of borderline personality disorder.

At any rate though, these sorts of articles basically ascribe a narrative to
an entire generation, which isn't really fair. Those sorts of impulses are
easily grown out of for most people, and people who are diagnosed borderline
come from all generations. I think the current thinking is that borderline has
both nature and nurture components - some from environment, some genetic.

------
morgante
Unfortunately, there's a real professional risk in speaking out against this
tide of censorship, so I won't say much.

This is a great essay on the increasingly anti-controversy left:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-
left/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/)

~~~
logn
From your link, I think the author nailed it. The fear is that the current
leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas and tomorrow's left will be more
extreme. The reality is that tomorrow's left will have opinions like the NYT
writer. You can see the inverse of this on the right, too: Rand Paul has
surpassed Sarah Palin; Alex Jones surpassed Glenn Beck.

Edit to add: So the progression of political trends isn't linear. Liberals
push for the next new idea and conservatives want to hang on to (or revive)
some other value, but (hopefully) neither is going to endlessly push their
agenda today until it's some authoritarian mockery of itself.

~~~
Alex3917
> The fear is that the current leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas
> and tomorrow's left will be more extreme.

I see a lot of evidence on the right but not much on the left. E.g. The people
saying they support gays but are against gay marriage are the same ones
helping African governments pass laws enacting the death penalty for
homosexuality. But I don't really see any evidence that, say, what the folks
lobbying for high speed trains really want is to put Christians to death or
whatever.

~~~
fennecfoxen
> The people saying they support gays but are against gay marriage are the
> same ones helping African governments pass laws enacting the death penalty
> for homosexuality.

I'm curious what this alleged political process actually looks like -- are
people writing checks to re-elect Robert Mugabe? -- and the extent to which
"people saying they support gays [etc]" here in America actually are
participate in that sort of process. When I hear those words, I think of some
of the people behind SB 296 in Utah, the antidiscrimination legislation which
has received praise from both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, way to go easy on the left. "High speed trains" is the worst you could
do? Ha! You could at least apply the "help African governments" standard and
start digging through their support of various leftist / Marxist regimes for
convenient atrocities, I'm sure there's something :P

~~~
Alex3917
> are people writing checks to re-elect Robert Mugabe?

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-
finan...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-finance-
ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-you-are_b_2229509.html)

> Also, way to go easy on the left.

I mean if you actually read DailyKos or whatever it's clear that a lot of the
people there are batshit crazy. But as far as I can tell it's one level of
crazy, I'm sure there are exceptions but for the vast majority of people I
don't think it goes 10 levels deep. Whereas on the right it seems to be the
rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare
what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception.

Whereas when people on the left have historically supported genocidal regimes,
as far as I can tell it's been because they (perhaps naively) did so
unknowingly rather than because supporting genocide was their intended
outcome.

~~~
twoodfin
_Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting
against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide
minorities, rather than the exception._

I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an
exceptional right-winger who _doesn 't_ want to genocide minorities.

~~~
Alex3917
> I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an
> exceptional right-winger who doesn't want to genocide minorities.

I mean you could just watch Fox news or whatever and see what they say they
want in their own words. It's largely not social liberals who are supporting
the war on drugs, war in the middle east, privatized
healthcare/water/education, climate change denial, etc.

------
DanFeldman
I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To
borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics
in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people
quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary
viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of
censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical
strategy is becoming mainstream.

Relevant smbc: [http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164](http://smbc-
comics.com/index.php?id=2164)

~~~
joeclark77
You used to hear American liberals saying things like "I disagree with your
position, but I would defend to the death your right to express it." It was
part of the creed that they thought defined them as "progressive". Funny, you
don't hear that much any more.

~~~
Frondo
The thing is, I don't think there are all that many liberals out there who
want to use the force of law to prevent objectionable speech;

They do want to use the force of law to prevent businesses from discriminating
among their customers, though, which is an important distinction.

Hate black people? Sure, put up a klan poster, but you've still gotta serve
'em a drink.

~~~
icebraining
Dunno about many, but there are clearly some, and often in positions of power.
Popehat has often unsettling stories about "censorious dipshits", from any
political position: [https://www.popehat.com/](https://www.popehat.com/)

------
Negitivefrags
The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is
an unintended consequence of the internet.

Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to
spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while
forcing out any dissenting view points.

Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as
anybody expressing an opposing view can be quickly and easily downvoted /
banned.

Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in
this manner now behave this way?

~~~
gd1
You can see it in action on Hacker News, or any sites with downvotes.
Inevitably, the downvoting will destabilise any equilibrium - the views of
even a slight majority will get reinforced in a positive feedback loop, and
you end up with an echo chamber. There are several opinions that I know can't
be voiced here.

~~~
venomsnake
I frequent HN, often write controversial opinions and the downvotes are rare,
usually I have someone spend the time and write a reply. The way adults should
deal with the stuff. But we techies love to argue for the sake of arguing, so
we are good at looking at it as a game.

~~~
PebblesHD
On the topic of things unable to be said however, disagreeing with Stallman
seems to result in immediate downvote shitstorming.

------
noonespecial
_" Nowadays, it is true, we are made so sensitive by the raving crowd of
flatterers that we cry out that we are stung as soon as we meet with
disapproval. When we cannot ward off the truth with any other pretext, we flee
from it by ascribing it to a fierce temper, impatience, and immodesty."_ \-
Martin Luther, 1520!

Maybe not such a new phenomenon?

~~~
mercer
Well, either 1) things haven't changed much, or 2) history rhymes...

------
tomjen3
>The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh,
calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies

That is something you would expect to find in a young childs room. Is that
really the state they are at?

And also, what is wrong with a real puppy?

~~~
jqm
Some people find dogs threatening...

I personally don't, but I do find rooms for adults filled with play-doh,
comfort blankets and rabid third wave feminists a bit threatening.

------
GuiA
Is this phenomenon observable in cultures that are generally accepted as more
progressively feminist than the US? (e.g. northern European countries,
Germany, etc)

I'm not American and I don't know much about feminism, so for me it's hard to
tell the proportions with which these ideas come from US culture vs feminism
(there are accounts of UK based initiatives, but there is heavy cross
pollination between the US and UK student worlds).

~~~
tunesmith
This sounds like a conclusion looking for evidence. What's with the interest
in blaming this on feminism?

~~~
EdwardDiego
I think that the parent comment is merely interested if this exists in
societies like Sweden where feminism as a philosophy is more entrenched.

As for why he's asking the question - because activist intersectional feminism
appears to be leading the trend towards these safe spaces, I guess? It was the
focus of the article ("rape culture" as a concept is, as far as I can tell, a
feminist one), although it segued into the racism/Islamophobia at the end.

~~~
tunesmith
You're right, I flipped some words in reading the first sentence and thought
it was getting at something else. Thanks for clarifying.

------
arvinjoar
On the same theme, Bret Easton Ellis [BEE] has been a vocal critic of what he
has termed "Generation Wuss" and "Outrage Culture"[1][2]. BEE is obviously
trying to be provocative, which might get some people to dismiss him out of
hand, but I really think he's onto something. One has to remember that BEE is
an author of transgressive fiction, and has experienced attacks based on the
content he featured in his books all his career (without his attackers
bothering to analyze his intent).

[1] = [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-
interview](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview) [2] =
[http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-w...](http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-
wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837)

------
isthisacult2
>>>Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent
among college students, that their schools should keep them from being
“bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space
as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put
on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence
of potentially disturbing material.

The Church of Scientology had to create itself some safe spaces in order that
its practitioners could feel comfortable learning new things in spite of the
rampant counter-opinions on the subject of the mind, body and soul.

Does the idea that colleges and other social institutions need a safe space,
away from all the 'counter-opinions' offend you? Maybe you should stop reading
right now.

Unless daily protected from doing so, every safe space eventually becomes a
prison. No institution is safe from authoritarian behaviour - even those who
fight repression/oppression/suppression. In fact, it is a daily struggle to
prevent these very human elements from impacting society - because
fundamentally there is a desire in all of us, every single one of us -
enlightened or otherwise - to repress those we do not agree with, suppress
those we despise for whatever reason, and hate those for whom we cannot find
anything to love about.

~~~
facepalm
What do you mean by safe space? I think traditionally people just formed
meeting groups of like minded people? But does every opinion or interest need
it's own fluffy room with puppies? I think not. It certainly wouldn't be
practical, especially if you want to account for possibly infinite new
interests and ideas that might emerge over time - so you would need thousands
or even millions of safe rooms for all variations of interests.

Typically people also have a home which should be a safe space for whatever
they want to do/be, and also of course their mind, in which they are free to
think whatever they wish.

------
jqm
Here is my (completely unsupported) prediction...

People involved in "safe spaces" or passing out fliers against "rape culture"
(not rape, that's a crime and a different subject), generally, on average,
after college, don't enjoy happy long term rewarding relationships, successful
careers nor make a lot money nor contributions to the world.

When I was in college in the early 90's I flirted briefly with the emerging
"PC" movement, (many of the principals which I support in theory). I quickly
distanced myself when I perceived the pervasive underlying negativity and
unhappiness.

~~~
throwaway9324
I wouldn't think so. Being actively involved in things in college seem to be
one of the better indicators of success in those areas. I know many geeks who
aren't especially successful in those areas and I don't think less of them
because of it.

------
return0
As an advocate of controversial discourse, i find these articles particularly
rile me up. I would like a "trigger warning" whenever i read about trigger
warnings.

------
joesmo
So basically colleges and universities are shirking their duty to their
students of providing them with proper education because they're afraid of
lawsuits which the college will likely easily win. The whole "politically
correct" culture of censorship, which this seems to be just another
instantiation of, has just gone too far and too few people are willing to
stand up against its censorship. There's nothing wrong with safe rooms per se
until the existence of such safe rooms deprives others of their right to
peaceful assembly, free association, and free speech, something that seems to
be the goal of some of these organizers. Censorship is censorship and people
who fall for these ploys are fools themselves while the people perpetrating
these ploys are the ones who should be prevented from trampling others'
rights. To put it more bluntly, if you can't deal with opposing opinions, it's
your duty to not expose yourself to them, not anyone else's problem. It's
despicable to try to remove others' rights because you're a cowardly child.
Furthermore, if these people insist on being children, then they should have
the rights of children (ie: highly reduced) and their opinions on such adult
matters should be discarded (ie: we don't let children vote). I'd like to
think that they could grow up mentally and stop being children, but I'm not so
sure that many of these people have that capability.

------
yardie
Comedian, Chris Rock, no longer does campus shows for this reason [1].

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-
colleges...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges-
conservative_n_6250308.html)

------
cauterized
People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that
something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack,
allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves
while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.

~~~
rdlecler1
Most of the article was about none of this.

~~~
cauterized
Fair enough. Most of the comments are, though! ;-)

------
fche
It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".

------
pron
That discourse is ridiculous, yet it seems like a simple case of the pendulum
swinging too far. It used to be bad one way, now the pendulum has swung too
far in the other direction, but only because people are still learning the
adverse effects of the way things used to be. Once people learn, and feel
comfortable with the new knowledge, things will correct themselves. I'm not
worried.

The only thing troubling here is the medicalization of the emotions
experienced during an intellectual debate.

------
KFW504
Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the
implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe."
Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it
is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not
want to be a part of it

~~~
hnnewguy
> _Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I 'm not sure I agree that
> the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally
> "unsafe."_

Why, then, isn't the "safe space" (in this case) anywhere that isn't the
lecture hall holding the specific debate?

------
MetaMonk
OCD runs in my family, and as soon as I figured out I also had it, the way to
get over it was to confront the things that "triggered" it. I've been
wondering for a while if there's any similarity to not facing triggering
issues in OCD and for all these people who've experienced trauma.

------
bobcostas55
Nietzsche has a great bit on these people. The Gay Science #359.

~~~
defen
Here's a contemporary quote from Oscar Wilde that hits at the same issue, in a
way that's easier for modern readers to digest:

"I never came across anyone in whom the moral sense was dominant who was not
heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid, and entirely lacking in the smallest
sense of humanity. Moral people, as they are termed, are simple beasts."

~~~
eli_gottlieb
So Oscar Wilde never met a genuinely kind and decent person?

------
bufordsharkley
"Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die
because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she
didn’t use the word guts)."

Amusing that the NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose
into THIS quote, of all things.

~~~
scintill76
I'm reminded of the time I elided repeated profanity from a Fahrenheit 451
passage I quoted in a high-school paper about the book. I found the profanity
unnecessary and felt it sort of obscured the point, but I did not realize the
irony of censoring "451" until the teacher pointed it out. Well, at least I
didn't burn the parts I didn't like, I just editorialized them...

~~~
anon4
What irony? Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship.

~~~
WalterSear
Go read it.

------
Puts
I don't even know why I read this. I'm so tired of people debating people.
Time to go do something creative instead.

------
throwaway9324
This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and
anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people
here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on
the subject.

I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.

Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of
replying.

~~~
WalterSear

        Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are
        by down-voting instead of replying.
    

This part:

    
    
        This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes,
        personal attacks and anecdotal commentary.
    

And this part:

    
    
        It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people
        here aren't interested in a debate, but just to       
        affirming there own views on the subject.
    

And some people are probably downvoting the vindictiveness and prejudice you
hold and make evident in this part:

    
    
        I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.
    

And maybe some are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate overall.
Hope your day gets better.

~~~
throwaway9324
"This part"

Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is
important?

"And this part"

I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where
they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of
different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite
the opposite.

"the vindictiveness and prejudice"

Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the
judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely
devaluing tech.

I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being
overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get
some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it
also how a lot of the tech industry works.

"are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate"

Or maybe it's just far easier.

"Hope your day gets better"

My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not
because I had a bad day.

~~~
hnnewguy
> _" Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the
> article is important?"_

Refute _what_ claim? That you think it's a "bad piece"? That's an opinion, and
you're entitled to it. There's nothing to refute.

~~~
throwaway9324
As I said I think it's a bad piece because it uses cheap rhetorical devices
rather than providing a nuanced view of the subject. And, as I also said, I
don't think this kind of angled article is appropriate if articles from the
other angles of the same subject aren't being presented on HN.

Those who upvoted it probably have a different view or they don't think the
quality of the article matters as long as they agree with it.

You can find almost every opinion possible on the Internet. They have no value
unless there's an argument behind them. I'm not going to write an essay for
deaf ears, but I did express my opinion with initial argumentation. So don't
act like I didn't and there's nothing to refute.

Edit: I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's grey at
the bottom of the page. Talk about tolerance.

