Oklahoma university president chastises "safe space" culture

[Leigh]

Uhm, I thought I remembered in the new testament Jesus basically saying fuck a lot of that old testament shit, and that's how the Schism started.

Maybe we read different Bibles

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Etc

 

[ThatOneDude]

Oh I get it, and I'm on board with you. I often question My wife (Catholic) if I'm going to the same hell as hitter for playing with myself.

What I don't get it how anyone can disagree with the teachings and positive message, because he gets it from a different book. I mean is he wrong in saying love thy neighbor? Or would it be more semantically pleasing if he said we should all be cordial to one another and treat people how we would want to be treated in return

Because of the other things in these books, written by a man, that are not so good. If you are religious can you really pick and choose, and like @Leigh said, if you do then do you really need a book to tell you?

 

[Punch]

Maybe we read different Bibles

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Etc

I'm going to have to go read that shit and get back to you.

 

[Greenbean]

Because of the other things in these books, written by a man, that are not so good. If you are religious can you really pick and choose, and like @Leigh said, if you do then do you really need a book to tell you?

i don't know man. I know very little of verses, but I know a little, being married to a catholic. We both have a good laugh at biblical literalists. There is a passage that says if you sin with your eyes, you should cut out your eyes. If you sin with your heads yo should cut off your hands. Ive asked her about this, and I'm not going to definitively say that she is correct in her interpretation of the bible, she said its b.s. You're not expected to literally cut your hands off if you sin with them. Rather it is a metaphor that you should cease doing or attempt to cease doing. Something along those lines, but I truley do not think the bible is meant to be taken literal.

 

[kneeblock]

Students at UC Santa Barbara passed a resolution in support of mandatory trigger warnings for classes that could contain potentially upsetting material. Professors would be required to alert students of such material and allow them to skip classes that could make them feel uncomfortable.[13]

In an interview about Trigger Warnings for The Daily Telegraph Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist internationally recognised for his trauma research said that "The media should actually – quite the contrary… Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That's not good".[14] Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, while writing for Pacific Standard,[15] discussed the merit of trigger warnings noting that "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder" while citing several academic studies conducted on PTSD sufferers. Frank Furedi, an emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, described trigger warnings as a form of narcissism, with the concerns not really being about the content of a book or work of art but about individual students asserting their own importance.[16]

There have been suggestions that trigger warnings could themselves act as triggers by reminding the sufferer of his or her trigger even if the article itself is unrelated.[11]

All very good and important points. There is quite a bit of science that supports the idea that trigger avoidance is negative and not only that, but most recovery modalities emphasize confronting trauma and utilizing techniques to confront it.

The open question, however, is whether people who have undergone no treatment and not recovered in any appreciable way can potentially benefit from such warnings.

 

[Greenbean]

If I may mr @Kneeblock could you give me an instance in which growth (physical, mental, etc) occurs without the unfortunate by product of pain or discomfort? I don't believe you can, and I'm willing to eat my words. I believe they go hand in hand.

To me, to deny one another of adversity, physical, or mental pain or discomfort, is to deny one of success and or growth. A couch potato will go through considerably less discomfort than say Ronda rousey, any former president, any elite athlete, any Ivy League professor, etc.

So your contention is that we can have success without the byproduct of discomfort? If so please provide examples. If not, then you are arguing for the wrong cause. This kid, in my opinion, will be better/stronger for having dealt discomfort in his class and overcoming it.

 

[kneeblock]

Sir this post does require a micro-trigger alert thank you!

Toughness, resilience, take your pick. What it DIDN'T require was a safe space. That we do know.

I think Martin Luther King was the best example because he faced REAL adversity and was tough and resilient while handling that adversitiy whilst exercising sensitivity (non-violence policy, protest through civil disobediance, etc). That is not an assumption, that is what we've come to know about him. Hence my reasoning.

Being sensitive is perfectly fine in conjunction with the ability being tough and resilient. Being just sensitive, will lead towards an imbalance of judgement, which will lead to trigger words, safe-spaces, micro agressions, and all the other made-up adversity. They actually had to invent new words for these "conditions" so that finally they would stick and be accepted as a real dillema.

Toughness and resilience are two very different things so one cannot simply "take their pick." The reason I used toughness in my initial question was because of the use of the term "pussification" by many. If there's anything psychology has taught us over the past several decades, it's that adversity is a relative term and it's inversely proportional to people's personal coping mechanisms (i.e. their resilience).

Likewise, safe spaces, micro-aggressions and triggering are very different things and the latter two at least come from academic disciplines, not student groups. Triggers are well accepted in psychology and psychiatry. Less so is warning someone about them in institutional settings. Microaggression theory comes from psychiatric theory in 1970, just 2 years after King's assassination. These things have regularly been discussed in feminist and racial theory, but just became mainstream in the past few years. Generally what we're seeing is a louder voice from people who have traditionally been marginalized, something not possible in King's time. King himself was only canonized after his death. Popular media accounts of him throughout most of his life tarred him in the same way as many of these modern protesters are being dismissed and attacked.

Now I would not draw any equivalence between a trigger warning activist and MLK, but just as his ideas were outside the mainstream and he was told the accommodations he and many activists were asking for were completely unreasonable, there may come a day when our society generally skews more in favor of emotional sensitivity and being tough is viewed as antiquated.

 

[Punch]

My phone is gonna die. To be continued homies.

 

[ThatOneDude]

All very good and important points. There is quite a bit of science that supports the idea that trigger avoidance is negative and not only that, but most recovery modalities emphasize confronting trauma and utilizing techniques to confront it.

The open question, however, is whether people who have undergone no treatment and not recovered in any appreciable way can potentially benefit from such warnings.

That's coddling them and enabling their victim state instead of working to recover and become whole again. That seems more damaging to me.

 

[kneeblock]

If I may mr @Kneeblock could you give me an instance in which growth (physical, mental, etc) occurs without the unfortunate by product of pain or discomfort? I don't believe you can, and I'm willing to eat my words. I believe they go hand in hand.

To me, to deny one another of adversity, physical, or mental pain or discomfort, is to deny one of success and or growth. A couch potato will go through considerably less discomfort than say Ronda rousey, any former president, any elite athlete, any Ivy League professor, etc.

So your contention is that we can have success without the byproduct of discomfort? If so please provide examples. If not, then you are arguing for the wrong cause. This kid, in my opinion, will be better/stronger for having dealt discomfort in his class and overcoming it.

I think that's a bit of a non-sequitur. I don't think proponents of greater societal sensitivity are advocating denial of adversity so much as mitigating the harm that it causes. Otherwise we'd be roughing it in the wilderness and having this discussion via carrier pigeon to be our best selves rather than posting on our phones and computers from a likely relaxing space.

 

[Yossarian]

Toughness and resilience are two very different things so one cannot simply "take their pick." The reason I used toughness in my initial question was because of the use of the term "pussification" by many. If there's anything psychology has taught us over the past several decades, it's that adversity is a relative term and it's inversely proportional to people's personal coping mechanisms (i.e. their resilience).

Likewise, safe spaces, micro-aggressions and triggering are very different things and the latter two at least come from academic disciplines, not student groups. Triggers are well accepted in psychology and psychiatry. Less so is warning someone about them in institutional settings. Microaggression theory comes from psychiatric theory in 1970, just 2 years after King's assassination. These things have regularly been discussed in feminist and racial theory, but just became mainstream in the past few years. Generally what we're seeing is a louder voice from people who have traditionally been marginalized, something not possible in King's time. King himself was only canonized after his death. Popular media accounts of him throughout most of his life tarred him in the same way as many of these modern protesters are being dismissed and attacked.

Now I would not draw any equivalence between a trigger warning activist and MLK, but just as his ideas were outside the mainstream and he was told the accommodations he and many activists were asking for were completely unreasonable, there may come a day when our society generally skews more in favor of emotional sensitivity and being tough is viewed as antiquated.

The term toughness was used as an example by you in question; as if somehow sensitivity/pussification has served mankind better. And I disagreed with that opinion.
What is generally accepted in psychology isn't relevant as it doesn't legitimize it for me all of the sudde. I mean, lobotomy was generally accepted once, so was the use of cocaine, electro-shock therapy...

 

[Greenbean]

I think that's a bit of a non-sequitur. I don't think proponents of greater societal sensitivity are advocating denial of adversity so much as mitigating the harm that it causes. Otherwise we'd be roughing it in the wilderness and having this discussion via carrier pigeon to be our best selves rather than posting on our phones and computers from a likely relaxing space.

Then you've literally just answered your initial question. We are where we are because of the sacrifice and adversity our ancestors have overcome via no pussification, and lead us right back to my contention. It's unprecedented and we will see where it goes.

 

[kneeblock]

That's coddling them and enabling their victim state instead of working to recover and become whole again. That seems more damaging to me.

Here is the question: Who are we to tell anyone what they need?

Doesn't it seem paternalistic to suggest to someone that what they say they want and need isn't good for them? My thinking is that's a job for licensed therapists to work through with them, not institutional actors.

I mean, that is the same rationale that got MMA banned in many parts of the United States.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Here is the question: Who are we to tell anyone what they need?

That's exactly what they are doing, telling everyone what they need and how they should do it. Who are they to do that?

 

[kneeblock]

The term toughness was used as an example by you in question; as if somehow sensitivity/pussification has served mankind better. And I disagreed with that opinion.
What is generally accepted in psychology isn't relevant as it doesn't legitimize it for me all of the sudde. I mean, lobotomy was generally accepted once, so was the use of cocaine, electro-shock therapy...

I didn't say sensitivity served society better. My question was whether toughness still was the best instrument for interacting with the world.

And what is accepted in psychology is not the point. I am explaining that these terms came from decades ago in psychology to rebut your own point that they were suddenly made up by modern activists.

 

[Greenbean]

@Kneeblock do you truly stand behind your position or are you playing devils advocate?

 

[kneeblock]

Then you've literally just answered your initial question. We are where we are because of the sacrifice and adversity our ancestors have overcome via no pussification, and lead us right back to my contention. It's unprecedented and we will see where it goes.

Mobile technology is unprecedented. The steam engine was unprecedented. The point is, culture is constantly innovated on just like other technologies. So the question is, does toughness still have its place?

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

That's an obscene amount of money unless you are talking multiple degrees...

This statement is one way you spot a Canadian.

 

[kneeblock]

That's exactly what they are doing, telling everyone what they need and how they should do it. Who are they to do that?

Good point and one that aligns with Splinty's earlier. Their methods are obviously problematic. But is asking for safe spaces or for someone to say the words trigger warning really telling everyone what to do or is it the same as adding handicapped spaces or ramps to buildings?

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Its amazing that "God's Word " in every major religion except Buddhism is almost entirely metophori

i don't know man. I know very little of verses, but I know a little, being married to a catholic. We both have a good laugh at biblical literalists. There is a passage that says if you sin with your eyes, you should cut out your eyes. If you sin with your heads yo should cut off your hands. Ive asked her about this, and I'm not going to definitively say that she is correct in her interpretation of the bible, she said its b.s. You're not expected to literally cut your hands off if you sin with them. Rather it is a metaphor that you should cease doing or attempt to cease doing. Something along those lines, but I truley do not think the bible is meant to be taken literal.

Isnt it amazing how "God's Word" according to each major religion is always fucking metaphoric? Its always "Oh you dont take GOD's word literally he was trying to trick you he meant blah".

I grew up in a Hindu/Buddhist household and am a Marist Old boy so not singling anyone out here, Hinduism is exactly the same EG when debating my dad on the Hindu Caste system whenever we raise Krishna saying to Arjuna "The Brahmin/Religious class is born of white skin, the Warrior of Red skin, the Trading class of yellow skin and the scum class of black skin" the hindu (dad) will always claim Krishna wasnt talking about skin colour "literally"............... seriously get fucked.

Debating the Catholic Brothers who taught most of our classes anytime you paint them into a corner they say its all about the values and not to be taken literally.

There is better instruction on Ikea packaging than most major religions except Buddhism.

 

[Leigh]

i don't know man. I know very little of verses, but I know a little, being married to a catholic. We both have a good laugh at biblical literalists. There is a passage that says if you sin with your eyes, you should cut out your eyes. If you sin with your heads yo should cut off your hands. Ive asked her about this, and I'm not going to definitively say that she is correct in her interpretation of the bible, she said its b.s. You're not expected to literally cut your hands off if you sin with them. Rather it is a metaphor that you should cease doing or attempt to cease doing. Something along those lines, but I truley do not think the bible is meant to be taken literal.

How do you know which to take literally and which are metaphors?

 

[Greenbean]

Mobile technology is unprecedented. The steam engine was unprecedented. The point is, culture is constantly innovated on just like other technologies. So the question is, does toughness still have its place?

If you consider this your utopian future (see below) then no. Not at all.

Ya, non sequitur, right. No I'm sure the easy road will lead us down a different path.

 

[Greenbean]

How do you know which to take literally and which are metaphors?

I don't and I hope I'm not coming across like I profess to. But if something makes sense, stop getting so hung up on the source. I posted a political fact on the other forum once and there were a few of the usual a who couldn't get past my source. They could not refute it, could find no literature supporting their position and make countless mentions of the source and not the material presented. It was legitimate, vetted material, but the source damn it! The source! Known for such bias spins!

So you have a completely different view on how a 'good person' should conduct themselves? Should they not strive to better themselves and help others?

 

[kneeblock]

@Kneeblock do you truly stand behind your position or are you playing devils advocate?

I don't really have much of a position, not that it matters.

To give you some context, I worked for a few years in the domestic violence world. I learned a great deal about trauma and how it looks when it's triggered and also what it looks like to make small accommodations that don't really impact people all that much.

Also, speaking from a very personal place, I experienced sexual abuse as a very young child and it didn't impact me in any way whatsoever. It happened and as far as I know, it's never done anything to me. For whatever reason, I was able to exhibit resilience in the face of that experience though other significantly less commonly accepted as traumatic experiences I've endured have devastated me.

So the combination of my personal and professional life have taught me that trauma and how people respond to it is very relative. As a result, I'm open to providing reasonable accommodations to help people because why not? This is America, not Sudan. A more emotionally supportive world has to be better than this mean and generally uncaring one we have today. Saying "that's just how it is according to nature" just isn't an acknowledgment of the world we live in.

That said, I see the value in hardening up in recognition of the fact that we're not there yet and until we are, there are plenty of people who will prey on you. I mean, I live in the Bronx, not Beverly Hills.

So I'm sort of in the middle on the issue and can see both sides. I think when people use the term pussification they sound old. Or spiteful. But I also think when people make enemies out of others simply because they don't understand why you're sensitive to something, they're being unfair and hypocritical.

That's where I'm at.

 

[Greenbean]

Debating the Catholic Brothers who taught most of our classes anytime you paint them into a corner they say its all about the values and not to be taken literally.

That may be. However I haven't been painted into a corner. I know a lot of Catholics that don't take the bible literally and a lot that do. I choose to associate with the more reasonable ones. There are nuts out there of all shapes, sizes and religions and non religions. However this is beside the point. This guy in the op is spreading harmful ideologies to unsuspecting students? You'd have thought this guy was with Isis or something. He seems like a good guy promoting positivity and accountability.