Section 3
10/10/15
This article, The Coddling of the American Mind from Lukianoff and Haidt, introduces multiple explanations for, and cases against, the rise of institutionalized trigger warnings. Though I came into reading the article with mixed thoughts about trigger warnings, I immediately read the title as aggressive and standoffish in making a point. The authors do provide valid reasoning for the rise of trigger warnings, from the increasing prevalence of mental illness to the forms of fallacious reasoning that lead to censorship of potential triggers. The authors compare triggers to PTSD and phobias, and demonstrate solid reasoning that those people should seek treatment and want to live a normal life, even with their triggers potentially appearing. I would like to add that censoring a trigger for one person, especially a common one, should be handled pragmatically as it may interfere with others' rights to education and speech. Rape, for example, is an important topic of both scholarly discussion and public awareness, and thus needs to be talked about openly.
However, where my opinions diverge from the authors' is sensitivity. Some triggers are severe enough to elicit actual panic attacks, and mocking the idea of trigger warnings in general is insensitive to these individuals. Even innocuous-sounding triggers can be serious (see attached image and link). People with mental illnesses or traumatic histories have a right to be taken seriously, so I do believe that trigger warnings have a place in education and society. I could discuss this in thousands of words, but with the rough word limit here, I must end with my question: where do we draw the line with trigger warnings that is fair to everyone involved?
Interesting personal look at the diversity of triggers:
https://thenib.com/trigger-warning-breakfast-c6cdeec070e6
No comments:
Post a Comment