U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Balrog]

NY Times

Going after trigger warnings and safe spaces is low hanging fruit and not all that noteworthy, but I do like the idea of taking a stand against the banning or disinviting of controversial speakers when a few students raises a stink about it. I would argue one need only look at the deafening echo chamber created by the right to see why screening speakers for the correct political viewpoint can easily become problematic (intentional word choice) and start a slippery slope.

[The Romulan Republic]

NY Times

Going after trigger warnings and safe spaces is low hanging fruit and not all that noteworthy,

Their are appropriate circumstances for safe spaces and trigger warnings (one should certainly not be forced to confront things they find traumatic in all times and all places), but they can be overused.

The backlash, however, could easily be as harmful, or more so, as the overuse.

but I do like the idea of taking a stand against the banning or disinviting of controversial speakers when a few students raises a stink about it. I would argue one need only look at the deafening echo chamber created by the right to see why screening speakers for the correct political viewpoint can easily become problematic (intentional word choice) and start a slippery slope.

I mostly agree with this, in and of itself.

Though I would point out that the words "slippery slope" are often immediately followed by the word "fallacy" for a reason.

In any case, I still think that the term "SJW" is largely a meaningless slur, which is applied by the alt-right types against anyone they consider too progressive as a way of discrediting them and expressing derision for them and their politics. I never hear anyone describe themselves as an SJW. Its a pejorative. Its pretty much the alt-right equivalent of someone on the Left labeling every conservative a Teabagger.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Because it's generally a sign that this person sees all left-wing positions in the culture war as one big unified blob. That they cannot tell them apart, and attribute extremist positions to moderate people. And that they are the sort of person who will reply to "I have been injured!" with "no you haven't, shut up and go away!"

Taken on a large scale, this leads to the sociological equivalent of the Kitty Genovese murder; people ignore or misunderstand what is happening, don't take an interest, avoid seeing someone get hurt... and peopel suffer or die as a result.

The people I see saying "SJW" most often tend to show stunning levels of callousness and contempt towards the actual problems of any group they've elected not to care about. It's their code phrase for "people who care more than I do, and that's annoying."

[Patroklos]

I never hear anyone describe themselves as an SJW. Its a pejorativer.

Ever been to California?

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Do people really refer to themselves as SJWs commonly there?

Oh well. They wouldn't be the first group to try to co-opt an insulting nickname. Unless they used the term first, of course.

But in my experience, at least, the term is used primarily as an insult, and seldom if ever as a means of self-identification.

Edit: I will add, however, that while I haven't ever lived in the legendary Left wing stronghold of California, I have lived my entire life in predominantly liberal areas.

[Patroklos]

I was actually surprised when I heard it as well to be honest. Local talk radio is mostly left, and sometimes off the wall crazy left here (which is far different from VA/SC where I lived most of my life). It is very common for people to identify themselves or their groups as SJWs. Its possible they are trying the "take it back" tactic as unlike a term like "teabagger" the label is not derogatory in construction, but rather via association.

[K. A. Pital]

I am glad to see that the American culture has not changed one bit. Since "Kill da Kommie fer ya Mommie" and until this day, people on the left are subjected to derison and ridicule with name-calling by a bunch of bigoted idiots and self-professed human scum of the so-called "Dark Enlightenment". Their next invention? "Social Justice Warrior".

The dumbasses probably wank to pictures of Xena the Warrior Princess in their tiny minds as they spell it out loud. Honestly, I was tempted to rename the thread because of this casual use of god damn "SJW" abbreviation.

That said, I am against censorship. Even fascists dare to have a say. Let them say what they think. Attempting to silence even the ugliest viewpoints results in creating an aura of martyrdom which is essential for cult-like following.

Fight the enemy by being smarter, not by being just as dumb as these assholes.

[Terralthra]

A faculty member of U of Chicago was on NPR earlier today and said that while obviously faculty are for academic freedom and lack of censorship, they wished the President had been a little more circumspect. There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics. The university hasn't told professors not to have them, there's no policy not to have them, and most professors who deal with such matters give content notices as a matter of routine.

[Joun_Lord]

There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics.

I agree with this. Some content can be disturbing and its good to warn people about whats coming so they can brace themselves or worse comes to worse fuck off. Though even the content warnings should be within reason. Having a warning at the start of a semester of some medical course that there is going to be nasty shtuff shown and hands on nasty stuff isn't unreasonable even if the argument can be very easily made that people should already know what they are getting into before the course. A warning before something particularly traumatizing like seeing a dead body, dissecting a large animal, or dealing with some issues that can cause stir up mental issues like rape and touchy subjects of war (a definite concern considering how many soldiers are going to college after coming home).

I don't think thats unreasonable. When it gets into the territory of content warnings on every fucking thing, warnings on liberal or conservative language, content advisory on speakers, and allowing students to censor or skip courses because their wittle feelings are hurt. College is where students go to learn, not to teach. College students are for the most part way WAY too stupid to teach anything beyond how to whine. College students are a group I feel can rarely be trusted with firearms because of how stupid, immature, drunk, stupid, and irresponsible they are and considering I am VERY pro-gun that shows how low my opinion of college students are.

They are there to learn, paid for the privilege (over paid), so they can have a better future then some high school graduate. It does them a disservice to be allowed to skip course work, to be allowed to dictate and protest and petition their way out of their education. As people have learned once they get into the real world, very few bosses are going to be open to protests and petitions, very few companies are going to allow employees to dictate how they do their work. Thats a road that only leads to firing.

I do think there is some need for "safe spaces" on campuses especially with the problems of rape though I think its taken to far too extremes, far too much segregation. I don't know what the current liberal or conservative position is on it but I feel segregation is bad. Society is best when people come together not break apart. People learn about themselves when they learn about others. People grow when they meet different people with different world views, skin colors, religions (or lack of), sexuality, and life styles. College is for some people the first place they really have that happen and to segregate housing, classes, clubs, and groups does a massive disservice to every student and society in general.

Pretty much I believe anytime people start putting up barriers, barriers on speech, barriers on race, barriers on religion, whatever, is when shit starts going off the rails.

However all thats coming from a cis het white male who doesn't rank very high in the oppression bingo being only an atheist and a member of cultural group that might be somewhat oppressed but everyone is generally okay with it, so maybe I don't understand the need for speech to be censored and safe spaces to be created. I dunno. But the arguments I've so far seen don't lead me to believe censorship and segregated space safes for every fucking body are necessary. Maybe I need to check my privilege?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't think thats unreasonable. When it gets into the territory of content warnings on every fucking thing, warnings on liberal or conservative language, content advisory on speakers, and allowing students to censor or skip courses because their wittle feelings are hurt.

Which (almost) never fucking happens.

General content warnings for the course are insufficient in my experience. It does have to be a topic by topic thing, because people dont keep that shit in working memory.

"Ok folks, this is an animal behavior class, there is some creepy stuff in here. For example we will be discussing forced copulation in about a month" just does not cut it.

"Okay class, this past week we covered sexual selection. This week will will extend it into Intersexual and Parent-Offspring Conflict, and we will start with the extreme case of forced copulation. This is going to hit some of you very close to home I suspect, due to obvious human implications. If you feel that you need to leave because you are in a bad mental space, feel free. You can come talk to me and I can arrange to give you my detailed notes and my lecture recording. You are still responsible for the material, but I know the statistics and absolutely wont hold it against you if you need to take a walk at any time." absolutely does work.

And I never had problems doing exactly that.

I do think there is some need for "safe spaces" on campuses especially with the problems of rape though I think its taken to far too extremes, far too much segregation.

That is not what a safe space is. A safe space is having a classroom "no bigotry" policy. I always made it clear in my class that bigotry was not acceptable. Disagreeing with an idea is fine. Argue with me or with another student to your heart's content (though chances are I will kick your butt), but if I think you are being an asshole because of someones race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity etc, you are gone. Hell, if you start belittling someone, gone.

Safe spaces promote the free exchange if ideas, by giving EVERYONE the opportunity to express and exchange ideas without fear or ridicule or victimization.

Do assholes from the dark side of tumblr twist that idea into something it is not (like saying men should not take womens studies classes)? Absolutely. But they dont usually show up in real life.

[Joun_Lord]

Which (almost) never fucking happens.

But it still happens. Though of course it rarely happens, it wouldn't be so darn newsworthy and getting panties bunched up if it was a common occurrence. But its probably becoming more common. Or its just seeming more common because of social media (or should I say social justice media, original joke do not steal).

General content warnings for the course are insufficient in my experience. It does have to be a topic by topic thing, because people dont keep that shit in working memory.

That seems odd. College students are stupid but I shouldn't think that stupid. They shouldn't forget what class they are taking. You deal in insects, students of yours should understand that you are going to talk about insect stuff that people might find creepy and it will continue that way until the day they graduate the class. Medical students should know that its going to be ongoing icky stuff. History students should know stuff like rape, genocide, and torture never went out of style.

I mean I suppose a warning for more gratuitous stuff couldn't hurt but in some classes everything could be considered gratuitous. And there needs to be some responsibility on the student to know what they are getting into before they sign up.

You can come talk to me and I can arrange to give you my detailed notes and my lecture recording. You are still responsible for the material, but I know the statistics and absolutely wont hold it against you if you need to take a walk at any time." absolutely does work.

And I never had problems doing exactly that.

How often do you have to do that? Would you penalize someone who continuously has a "bad mental state" and cannot attend classes they find objectionable?

I think the problem for most people is the fact it seems to be giving special treatment to some people and allowing them to get a grade without going to class. Again its probably not that common but its common enough where some people think its a problem. And while it might not be a problem for you at wherever you are but it might be a problem for others. It might cause too much of a disruption to have to baby several students who cannot attend class for whatever reason.

Its also a problem that can grow if not nipped in the bud or butt or however that saying goes.

That is not what a safe space is. A safe space is having a classroom "no bigotry" policy. I always made it clear in my class that bigotry was not acceptable. Disagreeing with an idea is fine. Argue with me or with another student to your heart's content (though chances are I will kick your butt), but if I think you are being an asshole because of someones race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity etc, you are gone. Hell, if you start belittling someone, gone.

Safe spaces promote the free exchange if ideas, by giving EVERYONE the opportunity to express and exchange ideas without fear or ridicule or victimization.

I'm and presumably people like the drama queens at the University of Chicago are using the tumblr-esq definition. I doubt there would be much worry about safe spaces if they followed the "no bigotry" definition. The worry over safe spaces is worry over the spaces that exclude people, that attempt to censor speech, that try to imply disagreement or having different opinions is bigotry.

Nobody but the most stupid stupid person would have a problem with a bigotry free area where people can still freely express themselves. Plenty have problems with zones of censorship.

Though in some ways there is a fundamental problem with safe spaces or atleast people in them. No nothing like that, dammit Jim I'm an asshole not a bigot, but in the fact safe spaces are supposed to be a place where people need not fear being "uncomfortable, unwelcome or challenged". For some people any discussion they do not like makes them "uncomfortable", any person they believe is an "oppressor" or whatever makes them feel unwelcome, and any disagreement is a "challenge". Look at the problems male rape survivors have getting into rape safe spaces or the incredibly terrible transphobic treatment transwomen take traveling to safe spaces for women. Or the exclusion of white people from meetings of people of color (by grabthar's hammer I hate using that term) because just the presence of whitey make them feel uncomfortable. A safe space is only safe for them if they exclude, if they segregate, if they censor.

]Do assholes from the dark side of tumblr twist that idea into something it is not (like saying men should not take womens studies classes)? Absolutely. But they dont usually show up in real life.

Tumblrinas ain't only on the intertubes though, not anymore. Tumblr style bullshit makes it into the public consciousnesses rather then confined to that unholy land of futanari porn and people using a surprisingly charming LGBT friendly cartoon to act like small minded bigots. The fact that there is a furor over Tumblr style safe spaces should make this abundantly obvious.

The internetized new definition of racism that confuses institutional racism with personal racism and get worse from there has shown up in mainstream, even had some movie about it including the line "black people can't be racist". Because according to the internet racism has a power element and therefore black people can't be racist because they have no power. I'm surprised they haven't said men cannot be raped because they have the power or something equally dumb, not that the actual reality of societies view of male rape survivors is much better.

My point, as no doubt crappy as it is, is that these things are no longer just something we might read about on the dark asscracks of the internet.

[Flagg]

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Agreed. It's the PC version of "pussy", "hippy", or "queer". It also reeks of privilege of people who've never been in a situation where you do need safe spaces.

[Kane Starkiller]

I've been in a situation where I needed safe spaces back during Yugoslav civil wars. We called them bomb shelters. Although I think that experience made me more dubious of the current usage of "safe spaces" not less.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That seems odd. College students are stupid but I shouldn't think that stupid. They shouldn't forget what class they are taking. You deal in insects, students of yours should understand that you are going to talk about insect stuff that people might find creepy and it will continue that way until the day they graduate the class. Medical students should know that its going to be ongoing icky stuff. History students should know stuff like rape, genocide, and torture never went out of style.

Have you ever MET a college student? Yes, quite simply, they are that stupid. Well, at least some of them are. Really, law of large numbers in effect. There will ALWAYS be someone that stupid in any appreciably large group of people. I've been in evolutionary physiology classes where students who were biology majors made a stink about having to learn evolution, or not believing in evolution, or not being allowed to teach intelligent design. And that's not even getting into the large category of humanities subjects (like English or psychology or sociology, etc.) in which controversial or uncomfortable ideas may come up rather unexpectedly.

There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics. The university hasn't told professors not to have them, there's no policy not to have them, and most professors who deal with such matters give content notices as a matter of routine.

This. The anti-"SJW" crowd never seems to understand that there is a difference between actual censorship and people saying, "Hey, this is a classroom, don't be an asshole and respect other's feelings on sensitive subject X by not saying offensive thing Y, please".

[Civil War Man]

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Because it's generally a sign that this person sees all left-wing positions in the culture war as one big unified blob. That they cannot tell them apart, and attribute extremist positions to moderate people. And that they are the sort of person who will reply to "I have been injured!" with "no you haven't, shut up and go away!"

Taken on a large scale, this leads to the sociological equivalent of the Kitty Genovese murder; people ignore or misunderstand what is happening, don't take an interest, avoid seeing someone get hurt... and peopel suffer or die as a result.

The people I see saying "SJW" most often tend to show stunning levels of callousness and contempt towards the actual problems of any group they've elected not to care about. It's their code phrase for "people who care more than I do, and that's annoying."

I feel pretty much the same way, though I'd add that I often see a fair amount of hypocrisy from people like that as well. From my experience, most of the Anti-Social Justice Warriors I encounter are way more easily triggered than people I know who have actually experienced some kind of trauma. The latter tends to realize early on that things will happen that will remind them of their past trauma, often by accident or out of ignorance of their experiences. So they build up mental defenses to help protect them from the everyday reminders, so it takes something particularly egregious or unexpected to have a major effect on them. For the people who use SJW unironically as an insult, though, they seem to build no defenses against the things that upset them. I find that even saying words associated with their particular pet peeves is enough to trigger them.

There is also a variety of Anti-Social Justice Warrior that is usually the first to demand safe spaces, and are often the ones demanding them the loudest. The difference is that they want the safe space to be exclusive to them and people who agree with them, and they want their safe space to be everywhere. This is the type that immediately tries to shut down any discussion of any topic that makes them even remotely uncomfortable, and frequently demands that any public figure that voices an opinion they disagree with immediately lose their jobs (which, for those playing at home, is one of the most common accusations they make about whatever subcultures they don't like).

[Vendetta]

I'm going to be honest, every time I see someone use the acronym SJW my opinion of them goes down a tick.

Agreed. It's the PC version of "pussy", "hippy", or "queer". It also reeks of privilege of people who've never been in a situation where you do need safe spaces.

Calling people SJWs is largely the preserve of people for whom the entire world is a "safe space" where they can expect not to have their assumptions about society or other people challenged to any great degree.

[Kingmaker]

ITT TIL SJW is an insult.

There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics. The university hasn't told professors not to have them, there's no policy not to have them, and most professors who deal with such matters give content notices as a matter of routine.

Trigger warnings are just one thing being called out, and the significant thing is that it sets their absence as a baseline. The letter overall is almost certainly aimed at the recent campus protests that have cropped up regarding speech on campus, controversial speakers (which has included a ton of people who really should not be controversial), and so on. The core message for students is that you - not the school - bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset you.

[Kingmaker]

accidental post

[Terralthra]

ITT TIL SJW is an insult.

There's nothing wrong with content notices for disturbing topics. The university hasn't told professors not to have them, there's no policy not to have them, and most professors who deal with such matters give content notices as a matter of routine.

Trigger warnings are just one thing being called out, and the significant thing is that it sets their absence as a baseline. The letter overall is almost certainly aimed at the recent campus protests that have cropped up regarding speech on campus, controversial speakers (which has included a ton of people who really should not be controversial), and so on. The core message for students is that you - not the school - bear the central responsibility for dealing with things that upset you.

I'm a university professor, nitwit. I give content notices when subjects like rape or child abuse come up in texts we're reading, just like I'd warn a Vietnam or Iraqi war vet before I set off fireworks in front of their house. It really is not that difficult, and it is entirely appropriate and considerate.

[maraxus2]

I was actually surprised when I heard it as well to be honest. Local talk radio is mostly left, and sometimes off the wall crazy left here (which is far different from VA/SC where I lived most of my life). It is very common for people to identify themselves or their groups as SJWs. Its possible they are trying the "take it back" tactic as unlike a term like "teabagger" the label is not derogatory in construction, but rather via association.

Where do you live, exactly? I've lived all over CA, and the Bay Area is the only place where talk radio could reasonably be considered left-of-center. Most of the guys down south, John and Ken for example, are just to the right of Genghis Khan.

I've never heard a self-identified left-winger use SJW as a term of positive identification. It's mostly squishy-right dipshits who use the term online. Even the Alt-Right Pepe Hitler branch of online dipshits doesn't really use SJW, preferring the more elegant "cuck" to describe people they don't like.

[Kingmaker]

I'm a university professor, nitwit.

That's nice.

I give content notices when subjects like rape or child abuse come up in texts we're reading

I didn't say you're wrong to do so.

[Terralthra]

I give content notices when subjects like rape or child abuse come up in texts we're reading

I didn't say you're wrong to do so.

Except you said "their absence is the baseline", which implies the exact opposite of this stance. Either professors should give content notices, or their "absence should be the baseline".

[maraxus2]

I'm a university professor, nitwit. I give content notices when subjects like rape or child abuse come up in texts we're reading, just like I'd warn a Vietnam or Iraqi war vet before I set off fireworks in front of their house. It really is not that difficult, and it is entirely appropriate and considerate.

Seriously. There are, as far as I can tell anyway, no measurable downsides of trigger warnings and safe spaces and all the rest, apart from tending to attract right-wing dickheads like Milo and Steven Crowder to your university. The only reason, in my view, why there's even a "controversy" about it any of this shit is that they inspire reactionary feelings among people who basically don't give a shit about any of these issues anyway. None of the dipshits who rail against SJW's and trigger warnings on twitter, or on this board for that matter, seem to give much of a shit about academic freedom. Where were these anti-SJW a-holes when Norman Finkelstein was getting railroaded for speaking the truth?

We had safe spaces on the UCSB campus for nearly a decade with literally no problems apart from a few complaints by the usual suspects (read: College Republicans and YAF). It really wasn't until last year that it became an issue, and that only happened once some of the rightwingers on campus invited Milo to come and be offensive at our famously liberal university.

[Terralthra]

On top of that, I don't see any of these champions of free speech arguing that the MPAA or ESRB ratings are stifling free speech, or that epilepsy warnings on video games with flashing lights are bad. It's pretty clearly a case of, "I don't care about these things, so I don't see why anyone else should."

[maraxus2]

On top of that, I don't see any of these champions of free speech arguing that the MPAA or ESRB ratings are stifling free speech, or that epilepsy warnings on video games with flashing lights are bad. It's pretty clearly a case of, "I don't care about these things, so I don't see why anyone else should."

Or worse, a case of "this strawman reflects societal changes that will lead to my persecution; therefore I must fight it." For guys that sincerely believe there is a widespread and coordinated campaign of left-wing violence and persecution against white men, fighting against irrelevant trigger warnings makes a lot of sense. You don't have any significant influence over changing demographics in this country, but you can fight a hashtag on the internet. Therefore, you must fight trigger warnings, and can ignore other abridgments of free speech as irrelevant.

I think it's stupid, but at least it's somewhat internally consistent.