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

What does the "B" stand for?

Berliner.

Branwell - no wish to speak over them, just adding what I've seen in similar discussions.

ok, long aimless ramble ahead.

i'm a middle aged white guy, and i do find myself involuntarily rolling my eyes at the youth, dismissing them as callow or whatever. at the same time i know this is an unfair cultural bias on my part. it's kind of sobering because i like to think of myself as having gotten wiser over the years, but when i run across something i wrote in college, you know, i wasn't some naif who didn't know what he was talking about, and accordingly there's no reason i should demean the young by assuming that about them. there are certainly things i know now that i didn't then. you know, you think procuring gainful employment as a 22 year old with a college degree is hard, try doing it as a 40 year old without one.

but they come up with all these new words for all the old concepts, like they invented them, and now i am middle-aged and am suspicious of anything that appears new, even if it isn't, and confused by such things. like, whenever someone tells me to check my privilege. do they mean like i should check my coat, at a restaurant? or should i check it like my watch, just to make sure it's still there? this jargon is insular and doesn't transfer over well to the middle-aged white dude wilco fan set.

the main thing that fatigues me is the stridency. youths demand things and anybody with eyes to see can tell that they don't have the power to demand anything, and i react negatively even though the stuff they're demanding (mainly tolerance and respect) is quite reasonable, and the only reason they don't ask nicely is because nobody listens to you when you ask nicely.

like, branwell, i like you and all, but when you go all j'accuse, i find myself overwhelmed with ennui. i've been on the internet for more than twenty years, and i've lost my capacity to react to outrage. i'm not saying that to de-legitimize your outrage. it's totally legit, you're gonna feel the way you feel, but i question as to what practical social purpose it serves. it's hard to have a sincere and meaningful discussion with a land mine.

Ahem 'aimless ramble'...

which reminded me of an extract from a book I read recently on stoicism...

But, over time, the demand for specific rights degraded into a generalized sense of entitlement, the demand for specific recognitions into a generalized demand for attention and the anger at specific injustice into a generalized feeling of grievance and resentment. The result is a culture of entitlement, attention-seeking and complaint....

i react negatively even though the stuff they're demanding (mainly tolerance and respect) is quite reasonable

how on earth is this anyone's problem but yours though? maybe you're not saying it is, but don't you see why people would be impatient with that kind of attitude? why do old people always feel so entitled to a "get off my lawn" attitude?

It's been very interesting watching a baby grow up and learn to do things over the last 10 and a half months, and it's made me think about the way we expect the battles we fought as adolescents not to need fighting again by the people who come up after us. And sure enough, some battles don't - they become entrenched in law or cultural responses or social mores, and that's great - but an awful lot of other battles, it seems to me, are way more microcosmic than that, and need fighting by each passing generation as much as babies need to learn to use spoons and not to roll off beds in case they hurt themselves. Every baby needs to experience these things, not just watch older kids and somehow know.

Which is to say, that old people need to appreciate that young people need to step on someone else's lawn sometimes, even if you've already learnt not to.

in my experience the young people who are most involved in cultures where trigger warnings etc are prominent are also the young people who are most involved in selfless activism for social housing, against police violence, and plenty of other things that often have no direct impact on them. i suppose viewing things from the outside and not bothering to engage could give a different impression

Addressing the issue of choice Branwell raises: it makes sense framed in that way, but (and this is not based on personal experience - I only took a few college courses, and never graduated, am certainly not an academic or an educator myself) I feel like the professorial POV may be some combination of "How are you going to learn anything if you're unwilling to be exposed to unpleasantness? Into every life a little rain must fall," etc., and...pride in their work? Like, they've gone to all this trouble to assemble a syllabus that they think will bring something of meaning and value to a large number of people, and then some kid comes in and says nope, they're not gonna listen because there's a single element of it that hurts their feelings? It's entirely possible that that could come off as extremely insulting to the professor. Granted, that may be seen as a reactionary POV, but if the student's feelings are being granted validity, the professor's must as well, yes?

Also, tangentially, I think what bugs people a lot about the term "microaggressions" is the "micro" part. Because it says right in the name that this is a very small thing, so the instantaneous response is, "That's nothing! What are you complaining about?" Perhaps a better term is needed. Which is something that I notice in a lot of "radical" discourse - the use of terminology is in-group focused, with seemingly little thought given to how it will be heard/received by the people under discussion.

isn't all jargon insular?

youths demand things and anybody with eyes to see can tell that they don't have the power to demand anything, and i react negatively even though the stuff they're demanding (mainly tolerance and respect) is quite reasonable, and the only reason they don't ask nicely is because nobody listens to you when you ask nicely.

how is this any different than when you were twenty?

like, whenever someone tells me to check my privilege. do they mean like i should check my coat, at a restaurant? or should i check it like my watch, just to make sure it's still there?

Hey, Seinfeld made it after all!

this jargon is insular and doesn't transfer over well to the middle-aged white dude wilco fan set.

I was going to say hey, jargon generally is, new ideas need new words, but actually that's not even true, the first Google result for "check your privilege" is knowyourmeme.com, which gives a history and a link to the original Peggy McIntosh article*.

youths demand things and anybody with eyes to see can tell that they don't have the power to demand anything

Dude, if they had power...

*okay, the link it provides doesn't actually work, you have to Google the title, but such is life.

ha, i was just thinking how good a term "microaggressions" is because the point is that it's the cumulative effect of the same ones over and over again, that in and of themselves are too small to take offence to in person, or if they didn't happen all the time wouldn't have much effect

i mean, it's toned-down language - instead of treating a minor rudeness with (eg) possibly unintentional, possibly racial undertones as A Racist Incident, it's people pointing out that if it happens repeatedly it feels weightier and more racist than any single incident would

Also as a counter: I've been on the internet going on 30 years, and I'm going further left on this over time, and further delighted by younger generations. I am wondering that maybe this is shifting to the internet because it's one of the places that you can (CAN) get useful friction, we disagree and we have the time to do it and neither of us are going anywhere - previously an environment that you'd see at, well, college.

xp Ah that does make sense - I never understood that about the term util now, always seemed to be doing more harm than good.

some kid comes in and says nope, they're not gonna listen because there's a single element of it that hurts their feelings

"hurts their feelings" - again this language designed to minimise what's happening. i'm lucky enough not to have needed a trigger warning but it's not so hard to imagine that reading or seeing certain things could seriously affect someone's mental or even physical health. this already happens in society, post-watershed programmes come with sex/violence warnings, as do films, the news comes with "some viewers may find these images distressing" warnings.

ime people who want trigger warnings aren't refusing to consume or engage with certain types of culture at all (although if they do it's totally their prerogative), more that they would rather engage them when they're in a good head space or when they're mentally/physically prepared rather than being blindsided

seemingly little thought given to how it will be heard/received by the people under discussion.

psst - the discussion is regularly about the people who were the subject of the microaggression and how they're doing.

youths demand things and anybody with eyes to see can tell that they don't have the power to demand anything, and i react negatively even though the stuff they're demanding (mainly tolerance and respect) is quite reasonable, and the only reason they don't ask nicely is because nobody listens to you when you ask nicely.

Think I must have gone blind for this sentence. wtf?!

It feels like discussions on trigger warnings pretty quickly devolve into discussions about which side is being a bigger asshole. but if we assume good intentions all around I still don't see much discussion about how trigger warnings might or might not be a workable idea in terms of education in general, academic freedom in particular, and then even in terms of the legal system.

how does this idea work out in practice when it's exported from the communities in which it was developed?

it's not so hard to imagine

Actually, it can be hard for a lot of people to imagine that words on a page, or images on a screen, could seriously affect someone's mental or even (especially) physical health. I mean, when I was a kid, movies that were rated G could have nudity and rather surprising (for today) levels of violence in them. Think, too, of the driver's education films that used to be shown in schools, with graphic footage of real-life traffic fatalities intended to scare kids into driving safely. If you grew up as/when I did, seeing stuff like that, it can be difficult to imagine that people could possibly be upset by things that are on their face seemingly much less shocking/horrifying. Never mind the idea of being triggered by race-, gender- or sexuality-based language when, from the perspective of someone my age (born 1971, graduated high school 1990), things are quite clearly better for racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities than they've ever been.

Trust me, for people who remember how much worse things used to be, it's quite hard indeed at times to understand what young people think they've got to complain about.

We seem to return to misrepresentations of trigger warnings. The way I've seen them, they're no different than advisories for movies we watch: strong, graphic material is coming, etc. As I've said, I teach and advise at a major public university and, after initial balking Phil describes, I see them now as courtesies. Twelve years ago I used to show Blue Velvet in a lit class. It's inconceivable that I'd show it now without warning student about the violent rape that occurs in the middle (and I used to show it at 8 a.m. – another indignity).

Actually, it can be hard for a lot of people to imagine that words on a page, or images on a screen, could seriously affect someone's mental or even (especially) physical health. I mean, when I was a kid, movies that were rated G could have nudity and rather surprising (for today) levels of violence in them

but if you love literature and film, then the sense of empathy created by deep reading should help you imagine how a Blue Velvet or Native Son might shake someone.

I'm actually more affected by violence than I was when I was twenty-four.

Things can always get better.

My understanding of trigger warnings is as Alfred just surmised: not a ban on discussion, but a flag that potentially difficult / upsetting discussion is coming (or even necessary) so people can be ready for it. I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

I'm going to try to hit a couple of direct questions here, but I'm at work and time is limited.

robin:

concerns about how wide the net should be cast, given how many possible traumas there are and how many situations might act as a reminder of these it seems like there is almost no cultural artifact which wouldn't be potentially problematic for at least one person's specific set of circumstances.

You're right. You cannot warn for every potential trauma. You can take this reducto ad absurbum and claim "but what about the one child who watched his parents pecked to death by penguins, do we have to put a trigger warning on everything containing Arctic seabirds?!?!?!?" Except, when you actually start to listen to people about what they want warnings on, they tend to fall into pretty recognisable patterns, many of which I've hit on above. Yes, it's true that trigger warnings would ideally reflect the specific concerns of the community they serve. Finding out what those specific needs are and how best to meet them, would be something I would assume would fall under the job of a Community Diversity Officer (like Bahar Mustafa, who has been targeted for removal) or the "diversity/inclusion/social justice" committee that Marcos mentions. Yes, it's impossible to come up with a *complete* list, but it's not hard to come up with guidelines that cover the basics at least.

it seems to me that if trigger warnings are attached to generic college courses, it is merely kicking the can down the road for when people who might want or need these warnings are no longer in a campus environment, and that this might be counter productive in the long run. (this is how I would interpret the word "coddling" in the atlantic article.

I am guessing that the desire to have them attached to college courses reflects, as I mentioned before, the idea (maybe college has changed substantially in the 20 years since I was around one!) that courses have required reading or watching material. Like I said, this is about consent. Triggering is a complex process, sometimes one has more tolerance for triggers, sometimes less, depending on stress levels, setting, and most critically... FOREWARNING. I am speaking only for myself here, but it's a common thing I've heard. "This contains triggers" does not mean "OMG I will never be able to read/watch this" - it usually means, I'm gonna take care of myself, make sure I am in a good place, psychologically prepared, forewarned, and have control over this situation, then I can engage with the triggery thing in a relaxed, calm environment. The absolute worst thing is having it sprung on you unprepared, blindsided, by surprise, in a noisy, tense environment, when I'm already feeling stressed. Putting a warning on something gives someone the ability to make that call.

As to "kicking the can down the road" - would it REALLY be such a terrible thing if it were? You keep talking as if Trigger Warnings are some exclusionary forcefield to hold someone in a bubble, rather than being a ~way of interacting with the world~ which values forewarning and choice and control. What if the can *did* get kicked down the road? What if people who grew up in an environment of understanding triggers went on to work in publishing, in television, in films? What if film ratings were useful things that, rather than saying "contains some adult themes" (what? people do their taxes and argue over whose turn it is the load the dishwasher?) they contained specific "contains consensual sex" or "contains scenes of non-consenting sex" or "contains racially abusive violence"? Would that really be an absolutely awful, terrible world? I know; "Life" does not come with trigger warnings, but I don't understand how a world where people can make informed choices about the media they consume and how that might affect their mental health and wellbeing is supposed to be a bad thing. How does this affect you, as a person that doesn't need them? How?

Rushomancy, I don't know what to say to you. I don't understand what you think you mean when you say "when you go all j'accuse" - you are going to have to be clearer and more specific than that - but really... you know, don't. Because I have reached my limit for this week.

Because the answer is mostly, I don't get some ~kick~ out of talking about this shit. I don't *enjoy* dragging up my personal trauma over and over and explaining it to people, in order to get people to treat me and people like me with a modicum of decency and humanity. (In truth, I find it *interesting* because it is relevant to my life and the issues I face.) But if having this conversation makes one or two people turn around and say "Actually, those Atlantic articles are kinda misrepresenting this; I have a more positive view towards this than I did before" then it is worth continuing to have them.

Man, I would *prefer* to just float in a happy zone where I never talk about anything but Florian Schneider and records I love. But when people keep metaphorically hitting you in the face over and over and over, the choice to act or not is like... you can learn how to duck and how to swallow your anger and eventually ignore being hit. Or you can keep standing up and shouting "STOP FUCKING HITTING ME IN THE FACE" until people stop hitting. But I don't get the choice to sit back and be jaded and do nothing because it isn't some vague sense of "outrage", it's not wanting to be hit repeatedly in the fucking face.

Congratulations on living a life where very few of these issues affect you. Congratulations that "ennui" is an option that is open to you. This is what "Privilege" means when people talk about it - it means you get the *option* to not care, and caring or not caring affects your life in no way.

Now I see that there are a million replies after Rushomancy but I have work to do.

Some things affect me WAY more now than they did when I was 24 or 14 or whatever.

Also, can I please repeat, that "Being Triggered" is not the same thing as "Being upset by something".

Seriously, do you get flashbacks, panic attacks, do you end up in scary repetitive thoughtworms that can last for hours or even days that make any kind of concentration impossible?

If you feel upset, if you feel disturbed, or even "outraged" or angered by something, please. stop. conflating. that. with what PTSD reactions involve. OK? Thanks.

I'm surprised that Trigger Warnings have become such a hot topic when there's no evidence that they're being imposed or forcing texts off the curriculum. I was bothered by the breadth of the Oberlin draft guidelines a few months ago but they were dropped and most colleges seem to be using them voluntarily as a courtesy without any ill effects. It feels like a paper tiger.

re: microaggressions, I like the word because I just think it's a pretty word, and it's imo also a pretty useful framework for describing the experiences of people who experience them all day every day, but just tactically I think people generally hate being called "rude" and thinking of themselves as rude, and the word oughta get more play. if I'm right, that people don't like being called rude, it's a little weird, because esp. Americans have really embraced this "did I offend you? WELL I'M JUST SPEAKING MY MIND" thing that's so horrible and gross, but I think "rude" in the US anyway still carries some stigma (probably rooted in garbage classism but stick with me here) that could be exploited for a little while

I think that's a pretty important part of understanding the vocabulary and nuance of this whole sphere -- many people just lack the cognizance or emotional experience to recognize the difference between disagreement and lingering emotional trauma.

I might just have some occasionally lousy coworkers, though.

JCLC otm about "rude" though, I'm definitely in favor of bringing it back

And I just wanted to add:

On a personal level, I dropped out of high school due to mental health issues. I got an equivalency diploma, and made several attempts at going to University, but ended up dropping out every time, again due to mental health issues.

I have no idea if trigger warnings in classes would have enabled me to stay in school and complete that education. But if I seem really passionate about *anything* that enables people, especially women, with mental health issues to stay at school, and finish their education - an option which was denied me - I am going to be really personally passionate about defending that thing.

Americans have really embraced this "did I offend you? WELL I'M JUST SPEAKING MY MIND" thing that's so horrible and gross, but I think "rude" in the US anyway still carries some stigma (probably rooted in garbage classism but stick with me here) that could be exploited for a little while

yeah but a bold canadian band tried to empower us with this word & ILX just laughed... shameful

as cheesy as it is, that web browser extension that replaces the phrase "political correctness" with "treating people with respect" is kind of eye-opening when it comes to framing what should be a simple idea in a heterogeneous society

Re: calling people out on rudeness (or anything), again, I refer to child-rearing (and I think basic psychology); you get much better responses by saying "you did a rude thing / that action was rude" than by saying "you are rude". Actions and reactions can be tempered and changed easily. Intrinsic sense of self much less so, and being told your intrinsic self is bad just isn't good at all.

Thanks for the reply Dröhn Rock. I definitely see what you are saying and it has made me reconsider my opinion somewhat, however you seem to be assuming a homogeneity of both traumatic events and individual responses to them that I am not entirely comfortable with. Its a fraught discussion because neither people, events nor people's reaction to those events are predictable, and what might be good for one person might not be good for another. I appreciate the response though and its definitely food for thought.

however you seem to be assuming a homogeneity of both traumatic events and individual responses to them that I am not entirely comfortable with

No, really, I'm not. I've been pretty specific over and over again, "this is my, specific, individual experience" (do I really need to qualify every time that other people's experiences may vary, *every* time?)

So I think the assumption is actually yours, rather than implicit in what I've been saying.

But this is the problem, when you have a thread of dozens of people ~discussing an issue~ and only one person who has experienced that issue talking about it from the inside. Other people start assuming that one person speaking their experience on that issue is somehow speaking for all. Wow, oh boy, do I ever not want that responsibility. I am just trying to provide one perspective which had been missing from this debate here.

as cheesy as it is, that web browser extension that replaces the phrase "political correctness" with "treating people with respect" is kind of eye-opening when it comes to framing what should be a simple idea in a heterogeneous society

― μpright mammal (mh), Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:10 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I agree with the sentiment behind this (and the Stewart Lee video), however I think the problem is that in practice a heterogeneous society is going to include lots of people whose speech or behaviour doesn't meet the highest standards of treating people with respect/political correctness, for reasons ranging from lack of access to education or lack of cultural context to general social awkwardness and anxiety or differences in cognitive functioning, and if statements or attitudes which don't meet those standards are treated as deliberate acts of aggression then people who may just not know any better and who themselves may be marginalized in one way or another may struggle to deal with the situations that arise.

Which is not to say that a high standard of respect isn't a worthwhile goal, I just feel like the question of tone in these things is hugely important and I suspect often misjudged.

Also, tangentially, I think what bugs people a lot about the term "microaggressions" is the "micro" part. Because it says right in the name that this is a very small thing, so the instantaneous response is, "That's nothing! What are you complaining about?" Perhaps a better term is needed.

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, October 8, 2015 8:56 AM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ha, i was just thinking how good a term "microaggressions" is because the point is that it's the cumulative effect of the same ones over and over again, that in and of themselves are too small to take offence to in person, or if they didn't happen all the time wouldn't have much effect

i mean, it's toned-down language - instead of treating a minor rudeness with (eg) possibly unintentional, possibly racial undertones as A Racist Incident, it's people pointing out that if it happens repeatedly it feels weightier and more racist than any single incident would

― lex pretend, Thursday, October 8, 2015 9:05 AM (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

re: microaggressions, I like the word because I just think it's a pretty word, and it's imo also a pretty useful framework for describing the experiences of people who experience them all day every day

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, October 8, 2015 9:57 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea i actually really like the term "microaggressions." lex very otm here about the cumulative effect of these very "small" things over a lifetime. i heard the term for the first time a few years ago and it totally resonated with me. i had a lot of white friends growing up -- very close friends, even -- say minor shit to me all the time that was "in jest" but grossly racist (calling my dad "chief" bc he has brown skin, saying my curly black hair was like "public hair", joking around calling me a "dirty peruvian" or a "mexican" even though i am not mexican) that didn't constitute "oppression" in the strong sense of say, police brutality or housing discrimination or whatever but over and over the cumulative effect of this minor things said jokingly by friends of mine over my childhood sent very clear messages to me about what white folks think about brown people and about how i really fit in (or not) into the very white community i grew up in. (aside, i had a lot of shit that i hadn't yet figured out as basically the only hispanic kid in my community and at this point in my life i can say that i wouldn't tolerate that bullshit anymore and wouldn't continue being friends with people who said that shit to me, but at the time it was a little more complicated, i truly wanted to be accepted by these people even though i never really could be).

Re: "did I offend you? WELL I'M JUST SPEAKING MY MIND." Sweet merciful jeebus do I hate that attitude of "obviously you just can't handle my raw REALness."

Whether it's used as cover for mild challops about a piece of pop culture, or for incontrovertibly hateful spew, it's manipulative in the extreme. It instantly positions any objection, however reasonable, as wussiness.

I was in college twenty-mumble years ago. Everything I thought and did was so cringe-inducingly immature that I am not going to hold today's youth to a higher standard than I would have wanted myself held to.

At the same time, I encountered a lot of ideas that made me uncomfortable. Interestingly, one of those ideas was to take other peoples' perspectives seriously, even those who were not well-off white dudes! This required a generous helping of "shut up and listen." Another idea was thoughtfully craft my tone and messages with the intended audience in mind so as to communicate with that audience more effectively. Including people with different life experiences than my own. Further including voices that have been historically underrepresented and/or silenced (perhaps especially those voices).

Thus, for me, learning to empathize with people and learning to think/speak/write effectively were inextricably linked. Neglecting the first would have sabotaged the second. As a result I'm grateful for posts like branwell's here.

But this is the problem, when you have a thread of dozens of people ~discussing an issue~ and only one person who has experienced that issue talking about it from the inside. Other people start assuming that one person speaking their experience on that issue is somehow speaking for all. Wow, oh boy, do I ever not want that responsibility. I am just trying to provide one perspective which had been missing from this debate here.

― Dröhn Rock (Branwell with an N), Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:30 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What I was trying to suggest is that while you might be the only person in this thread who has experienced your specific set of circumstances, there might be others who have experienced traumatic events and who have a different perspective on whether trigger warnings would have been helpful in how they dealt with it. Which is not an attempt to diminsh the value of your own perspective at all.

THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! That idea had literally ~never~ crossed my mind! So glad you pointed it out to me.

Branwell over and out.

I have definitely dealt with a person or two who most definitely had some strong traumatic events in their past who was not aware they were triggering post-traumatic stress in others by talking about certain people and events.

But, you know, family is often difficult

The way Alfred, Lord Sotosyn described trigger warnings, in the context of a classroom, seemed pretty reasonable.

I will say that the name could be a little less violent...for people who don't like to evoke the imagery of guns.

Trigger warning:

http://www.horsenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trigger-alive2.jpg

i actually think the use of the term trigger warning in that atlantic piece is kind of a red herring. but it's a buzzword and i guess that's why its there. really my interest was in the psychology of safeness and well-being and *kids today - are they more sensitive than in the past?*. but the more i think about it the more i think that they are probably not all that different than i was at that age. though my own defense mechanism way back when was to hide alone in my room and curl up with music in the dark and want to die in a hole. i have no idea what i would have been like with the internet.

in retrospect, i should have put this on the baby making board. don't know if people still go there though. just for a general discussion of kid/teen psych. since i am raising two future firebombing warriors.

for the record i am all for calling people out on their shit and people feeling safe and not feeling uncomfortable and i think it's probably really easy to give someone a top-notch rigorous education and even challenge their assumptions without ever upsetting them. maybe bore them a little. but a little boredom is good for kids.

Yes, it's good training for the soul-crushing boredom they will experience in post-collegiate life.

exactly!

tbf some of us find a way to be upset (although not traumatized! hopefully!) about just about anything

could use a little bit of that laid back firebombing warrior nature of the seward boys

oh man that was not meant as any sort of passive dig! I meant me. I've got my issues w/anxiety under control, though. all life was anxiety-causing when I was in college.

What is it about modern life that requires a hardened outer shell? Sitting in front of a computer all day answering emails? Obeying traffic laws on the way to/from work? Shopping for groceries? Going to the bank? Is there any instance here where a heightened sensitivity would not result in a better and safer experience for all?