The Coddling Of The American Mind (Trigger Warning Article In The Atlantic...)

you mean, the young?

Obama's fault

uptalk is just a sign of a generation willing to question everything and anything

disruptors, is their appellation

codling warning
http://www.worldseafishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/mt_cobh_cod.jpg

disruptors are throwing figurative bang snaps at the feet of startled normies everywhere.

please, it's neurotypicals

i wonder if what is really at issue here is something like the "political" in carl schmitt's sense: the political as the space of legitimate conflict. or if schmitt's critique of liberalism as obscuring the political could be useful here.

oh boy, a whole other thread for this shit

shit, now we've bummed out qualx too. good ol' qualx.

I don't work in academia, but I find it hard to believe that kids today are more "sensitive" or demand more coddling than they did a decade ago when I was in college. I feel like the trend pieces have been popular due to:

-The insane insecurity of the academic job market, and how easy it is lose work if you're not tenured. This is not necessarily the students' fault, but I get the impression reading these things that some academics feel besieged on all sides, and students are an easier scapegoat because students are more likely to be obnoxious and self-righteous than the administrators who are actually the ones with the power.
-The fact that young people now have a "published" platform in the form of social media, particularly in the post-twitter age. So suddenly things that professors wouldn't have even heard about a decade ago may be more likely to develop publicly, and that has people nervous and scared. Even if there's a certain boogeyman quality to the whole thing.

Add this to editors knowing that bashing millennials will get you clicks, and you get a slew of stories like this.

Also one thing that bothers me about a lot of these pieces is that they imply that trigger warnings let students opt out of course readings without providing any evidence that professors are actually allowing that. It's in the Atlantic article repeatedly.

What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection?

Hopefully they will find the unmitigated courage to get a job writing for the Atlantic about how college kids are wimps.

I read the thread title as The Coddling Of the American Mind (Trigger Warning -- Article in the Atlantic)

that was exactly how i read it too, a warning against articles in the atlantic, which is the sort of warning i'm cool with tbqh

one of my typed-and-deleted posts this morning was "thread title needs a colon"

yeah I was thinking like trigger for IA at nu-Atlantic terribleness

intheblanks otm

there is also a totally lame element of "political correctness gone mad!!!!" bullshit imo

shit, now we've bummed out qualx too. good ol' qualx.

― scott seward, Saturday, 3 October 2015 20:01 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol <3

contemporary college students are awesome (i teach them) and seem exactly the same as college students did when I was in college

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, October 3, 2015 1:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i would say "yes" except for one thing, i think they've largely lost the ability to read more than a few paragraphs at a time. all but the very the best students seem constitutionally unable to process an entire chapter (let alone an entire book) and follow an argument. i can even feel this happening to myself, gradually, as a result of spending too much time on the web.

Also one thing that bothers me about a lot of these pieces is that they imply that trigger warnings let students opt out of course readings without providing any evidence that professors are actually allowing that. It's in the Atlantic article repeatedly.

― intheblanks, Saturday, October 3, 2015 4:15 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this sort of thing absolutely happens... sometimes... not often. basically these articles take a very real but marginal phenomenon and make it sound as if it's a majority practice at american universities. which it isn't.

that said, some of the things that always come up in these articles (like the "safe space" with stuffed animals and candy brown university set up when a pro-life speaker was on campus...or something like that) are so absurd that you really have to wonder what sort of echo chamber the people involved exist in that they don't recognize their own ridiculousness.

the brown thing was hilarious in that it basically wrote one of thee articles about the infantilizing of undergraduates all by itself....

*these articles

-The insane insecurity of the academic job market, and how easy it is lose work if you're not tenured. This is not necessarily the students' fault, but I get the impression reading these things that some academics feel besieged on all sides, and students are an easier scapegoat because students are more likely to be obnoxious and self-righteous than the administrators who are actually the ones with the power.

this seems v otm, teens using the college space to begin to define themselves personally and politically in often quite unrefined ways is obviously not a new phenomenon, what's more new is university admin who are looking for any opportunity to cut staff* and making lecturers feel like they're walking on a tightrope at all times.

*though have there actually been many / any instances of people losing their jobs over this kind of thing?

there is only one thing that bothers me about the trigger warning clique, who seem to me to be basically saying "hey, don't be an asshole" and all the assholes (well, not all the assholes, because i am definitely an asshole) get all up in arms about it. and that's the "mansplaining" thing. i get where that comes from. these days everybody wants to talk, nobody wants to listen, and i am a chatty fucking cathy when it comes to explaining stuff. that said, i will always be shit at validating other people's emotions, and calling me out on that is not going to do anything to improve the situation. fuck meta-confrontation.

dlh, intheblanks otm itt

i knew i'd read this article but i can't remember which of the dozen articles on this topic i've read in pre-caffeine somnolent facebook-based auto-browsing mode it is. it has the best title of all the articles both pro and anti!.

Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students.

good to know, good work guys

xxpost The other new thing is Twitter etc. amplifying these petty things into national issues we all have to take sides on. Like back in the day the dickbag who was offended that he was steered toward a graphic novel with icky lesbians would have just been writing in his student paper not starting a national debate.

there is only one thing that bothers me about the trigger warning clique, who seem to me to be basically saying "hey, don't be an asshole" and all the assholes

sadly, this is not at all what "trigger warnings" are about, as much as i might wish it so.

trigger warnings are often just about /broaching/ a topic, not even taking an assholish perspective on it.

http://i.imgur.com/yNDKxYv.gif

i kept reading for the clever twist, the angle that would make this article not just another "oh brother, these sensitive students" piece and it never came. so stewart lee's take on PC perfectly applies, it's the best thing i've ever heard on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

(^ trigger warning)

Yeah, Lee's spot-on there.

the thing that gets me about trigger warnings is that somehow we've managed to politicize the principles of effective communication. in america, communications is a first-semester college requirement, and if you go that class they say, for instance, that when you speak in public you should tell your audience what you're going to say, say it, and then tell your audience what you just said. so it seems to me that if you're going to talk about, for instance, rape, it's effective communication to point that out.

one of the other things they say in comm 101 is that effective communicators pay attention to their audience. so many people these days get caught up in the fantasy of speaking truth to powerless and wholly ignore this aspect of communication. if your bread and butter comes from scoring meaningless rhetorical points while inflaming pointless arguments, that's at least understandable, but i can tell you from experience those sorts of "victories" tend to ring hollow after a little while. attempting to pummel people into submission with rhetoric simply doesn't work very well.

i wonder if what is really at issue here is something like the "political" in carl schmitt's sense: the political as the space of legitimate conflict. or if schmitt's critique of liberalism as obscuring the political could be useful here.

― ryan, Saturday, 3 October 2015 20:51 (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am not sure that BLM, for example, would characterise the current atmosphere as being void of legitimate conflict, so much as "It'd be nice to have a discussion using shared terms without it turning into Reddit every 5 minutes"

these days everybody wants to talk, nobody wants to listen, and i am a chatty fucking cathy when it comes to explaining stuff. that said, i will always be shit at validating other people's emotions, and calling me out on that is not going to do anything to improve the situation.

Mansplaining, in my understanding, is less "validate my emotion" and more "be aware that 'genially tell me to STFU, I already know this' is a response that's selected for in certain environments and selected sharply against in others"

so many people these days get caught up in the fantasy of speaking truth to powerless

Actually that's a better definition :)

I sometimes wonder if it isn't the internet that has made everything so raw. The college experience seems like a good place to learn to grow thicker skin in the new digital age. I wonder how many freshman are concerned about trigger warnings compared to seniors. I didn't really have to read all the articles and threads, just my two cents.

really have TIME to read

i love the last paragraph of this:

"In 1990, when I was eight years old, radical student activists at Wesleyan firebombed the president’s office. This was not, I hasten to say, a constructive way to go about getting what they wanted. And yet I’m struck by how fundamentally different the thinking of campus activists was then, not just at Wesleyan, but writ large. Back then, students wouldn’t have been caught dead making appeals through official channels. They were more likely to occupy administrative offices than to go to them, hat in hand, seeking to get what they want. Somewhere along the line, sit-ins and underground newspapers were replaced with committees and formal complaints. The question for the passionate, committed young activists at Wesleyan and elsewhere is whether they can ever shake up the system by asking it nicely to change."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122938/college-students-have-forgotten-how-fight-system

more firebombings plz ty...

I just googled Wesleyan. Who the fuck is going to firebomb a place they're paying $48,704 a year to go to.

It's funny how it doesn't matter how many examples of this behaviour come up, the response of some people on the left is simply to deny it exists. This allows the right to pretend that the left doesn't give a shit about free speech. It doesn't strike me as a great strategy.

my wife is getting a masters at cal state northridge and one of her undergrad classmates likened a pop quiz she took to 'getting raped'. People kinda throw that word around too easily these days imo.

my wife is getting a masters at cal state northridge and one of her undergrad classmates likened a pop quiz she took to 'getting raped'.

And the next person over didn't immediately start screaming "microaggression!!!"?

I just googled Wesleyan. Who the fuck is going to firebomb a place they're paying $48,704 a year to go to.

Odd thing about the recent articles posted is they don't mention tuition at all. Which seems like it should be a huge factor in student/admin relations.

Like I can buy the idea that these colleges are bastions of free speech where students should be compelled to challenge everything if tuition didn't saddle most of them w lifelong debt. These power dynamics don't exist in a financial vacuum.

one of her undergrad classmates likened a pop quiz she took to 'getting raped'. People kinda throw that word around too easily these days imo.

On the contrary, this is the kind of thing I both heard and said routinely when I was in college 20 years ago. But as I grew up I started to understand that was actually kind of a gross thing to say, and I stopped saying it, and it seems to me that I hear it less too. And my increased understanding of this is largely thanks to the kind of efforts the Atlantic likes to shit on. My rights are not in danger from people encouraging me to talk and write mindfully instead of mindlessly.

xp i suppose one instance of this kind of thing that i've noticed in british universities does come down to that, students insisting on getting their money's worth. and tbh that's completely understandable, fuck getting into a dizzying amount of debt and not getting what you perceive that you've paid for, though it is obviously a terrible way to approach university

eephus emphatically otm

It's funny how it doesn't matter how many examples of this behaviour come up, the response of some people on the left is simply to deny it exists. This allows the right to pretend that the left doesn't give a shit about free speech. It doesn't strike me as a great strategy.

― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Monday, October 5, 2015 10:33 AM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't know, I think there is plenty of policing of speech and social norms on both sides of the political divide. TBH we're not that that far removed from the "how dare you question america, don't you support our troops"-era among conservatives, and that's still very much a part of that discourse.

Anyway, I don't deny that there are examples of college students going to unnecessary extremes that contradict traditional American ideas of free speech. I do, however, deny that it is a very important social trend that deserves cover stories in major magazines, or frankly much of my attention at all. Like, I wouldn't even put this in the top 100 problems with American's higher education system.

yeah - beautifully put eephus xpost

Go piss up a rope with Noel emits

^ winning hearts and minds one "fuck off" at a time

well gyac already said everything that needed saying. you're just feeling superior, as usual

you're just feeling superior

and brimstead, ofc, was just feeling, uh, smugly, morally... (looks for a word that means 'superior', while avoiding the blatant irony of it. fails. seeks an alternative, gentler approach)

go piss up a rope, sleeve

and brimstead, ofc, was just feeling, uh, smugly, morally... (looks for a word that means 'superior', while avoiding the blatant irony of it. fails. seeks an alternative, gentler approach)

go piss up a rope, sleeve

― more difficult than I look (Aimless)

i'm sorry, i don't know the social dynamics involved, what are you doing here again?

dick measuring, apparently.

i will say that i am, in fact, grateful to brimstead for telling dji to "fuck off". to me, that's allyship. in a practical sense, telling dji to fuck off isn't something i can really do anymore, so i'm glad that brimstead did.

as far as aimless goes... thank you for getting your dick out on stage. is there a joke you're trying to set up by doing this, or were you just trying to be edgy for the sake of it?

Glad I could provide some catharsis.

fuck off

Glad I could provide some catharsis.

― DJI

fuck off, you didn't provide jack shit in terms of catharsis. you provided a hostile environment, you want to take credit for that, be my fucking guest

gyac otm throughout obviously

Now that the dust settled I'm curious what people now think of that original atlantic article scott posted in 2015?

you know what's funny is a lot of my liberal friends who have full-on embraced safe spaces and are sympathetic to triggers were positively railing against this article back then.

mocking the idea outright. guessing Trump brought them around to seeing their benefit.

there were a lot of things that i had to have very patiently explained to me by people who knew a lot better than i did. i'm grateful that they took the time. it wasn't their responsibility to do so.

Now that the dust settled I'm curious what people now think of that original atlantic article scott posted in 2015?

still very dumb moral panic stuff. just tries to tie a bunch of unrelated anecdotes into the idea that content warnings are bad and coddling students, it's a very weak argument.

Anything that resolves to "kids these days amirite" should be rejected out of hand and anyone pushing it should be ridiculed at every opportunity.

^^^^
Words to live by but damn does it get hard as you get older.

Anything that resolves to "kids these days amirite" should be rejected out of hand and anyone pushing it should be ridiculed at every opportunity.

― papal hotwife (milo z)

kids these days are based af amirite

heh, I was going to say that includes zoomer fetishism to a lesser degree

The excellent If Books Could Kill podcast recently did an episode of the The Coddling Of The American Mind book, no spoiler to say they were not very impressed.

https://pod.link/1651876897

Ooo, I love Michael Hobbes on Maintenance Phase, will check that out.

that pod is great (and so is the ep)