The funniest man on the planet is here to talk about something not funny. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, and is the secular community targeting the wrong thing when we speak out against shrieking 19 year olds at Yale. Eli holds a very passionate position on this and we have a good discussion on it.
Here are some links Eli referenced:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinions/kohn-yale-protests/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:49 — 45.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
I find nothing anywhere on the internet about this “Katrina themed halloween party”, so I call bullshit on that. I also call bullshit on the idea that IF such a thing happened that nothing would have been done. I also (contrary to what Eli is saying) know for a fact that the professor met with students in his home after the incident on the quad. A meeting in which he apologized to the students for upsetting them.
Eli apparently didn’t even watch the video. What the professor disagreed with is the girl saying “your job is to make this a home, not a place for intellectual discourse”. If this Eli guy is supposed to be funny, it’s apparently in the court jester sense, I’m finding myself laughing at him not with him.
Having listened to more I have more to add, I’d heard as you had the claim that a black girl had been turned away from a party. A claim that not only hasn’t been corroborated, but wasn’t even corroborated by people who were there with her at the time. In fact from what I understand the police showed up after complaints were made, and no one was being allowed into the party because there wasn’t room for more people. The more I listen to Eli the more I hear someone who is bending over backwards in his attempts to defend this girl, and SJW’s in general. In fact he doesn’t seem to even realize what an SJW is. These are not the people who want to have an intellectual discourse on social justice. They are the ones who attempt to enforce their position through intimidation, exactly as that girl did. She was not just behaving badly, she was behaving as SJW’s behave. She wasn’t crying either, a complete mischaracterization by Eli in my opinion, she was screaming, and making demands.
I don’t mind sitting through a list of trigger warnings at a lecture or a seminar or on a podcast; it’s no skin off my nose, as they say. But . . .
Think about it, folks. If a professor is required to give a trigger warning before discussing rape, how much more should the rapist have been required to issue a trigger warning: “You should be aware–this might upset you.” Soldiers definitely should receive trigger warnings: “Warning: If you think you might be upset by seeing children blown in half by IEDs or having your colleagues die in your arms or having your own limbs unceremoniously ripped away by explosive ordnance, you may want to confer with your mental health care professional before engaging in military activities.”
Like I said, I don’t mind listening to the warnings and if they help somebody, wonderful. But, if you don’t get the warnings in real life, how really effective can they be in the media or academia? I would think therapy, education and/or training on how to prevent and avoid hideous situations wherever possible to begin with and then training on how best to recover from a shitty situation would do more good. Vigilance and resilience would help more, I would think.
“Like I said, I don’t mind listening to the warnings and if they help somebody, wonderful. But, if you don’t get the warnings in real life, how really effective can they be in the media or academia?”
I’m not sure how this follows at all. There aren’t any warnings in real life over what foods might contain peanuts, but we add them on packaged foods or we tell our friends when they come over because we know it’s something that might harm them if they are unaware.
Appealing to “real life” just seems like a lazy naturalistic fallacy where we assume that if it’s good enough for the wild then it’s good enough for civilised society – but that makes no sense. The whole reason for having trigger warnings in social situations is because we know that the lack of trigger warnings in real life situations has such a damaging effect on people’s mental health.
When it is possible, this is why soldiers or police officers will give each other a heads up on what they’re about to walk into. They get the code for what damage has been taken, lives lost, the state of the place they’re about to walk into etc, and this reduces their chances of developing PTSD. When we can’t do that, like in unpredictable or unknown situations, that’s how PTSD comes about.
“I would think therapy, education and/or training on how to prevent and avoid hideous situations wherever possible to begin with and then training on how best to recover from a shitty situation would do more good. ”
Well one line of research into recovery on traumatic experiences to try to avoid being triggered in uncontrolled situations. For example, if somebody has a spider phobia we’ll warn patients to avoid doing things like climbing into the attic or crawling under a house, because they’re likely to encounter a spider, they’re in a tight confined space where they can’t escape, and the whole experience will add to their trauma making it worse in the long run and harder to treat.
This is why trigger warnings are such useful things. So even though in the “real world” trauma victims are forced to rexperience their trauma every time they’re triggered which sets back their progress and mental health, we can help avoid that somewhat in academic or social situations by taking a second to say: “Oh heads up guys, we’re going to be talking about X. Great, here we go”.
“I’m not sure how this follows at all.”
It doesn’t; that’s the point.
Sorry I must have misunderstood. So you were saying that it’s silly when people question the effectiveness of trigger warnings in media and academia based on the fact that they don’t occur in the “real world”?
Then that’s a good point, I agree.
Just listened to his interview with cogdis, and he IS an SJW. In fact I see almost no daylight between his positions, and the stuff that comes out of the mouth of PZ Meyers. He’s a disgusting individual who supports doxing people who opinions he doesn’t like. What reason is there to dox someone unless you want to give direction to some deranged individual who will show up at their door with a gun. If someone who makes a beat up Anita Sarkeesian game should be doxxed then surely a disgusting atheist bogger in Pakistan deserves to be doxxed. I’m sure Muslims find such a person far more offensive, and dangerous than someone who makes a game.
I wanted to expand a bit on my previous comment by first of all pointing out that Eli personifies SJW. It’s not their goals that people object to, but their methodology. Secondly I’m sure Bill O’reilly felt the same degree of righteousness when he repeatedly called out “Tiller the baby killer” for “killing” babies that Eli feels when he supports unmasking anonymous people who’s actions he finds reprehensible. Their intent in doing so is similar as well. They want to either force the person to end such activities, or put their lives at risk if they chose to continue. They both are so driven by their ideology that they believe almost any means are acceptable in order to achieve their goals.
I find your eagerness to group people into arbitrary groups like “SJW” really childish. Eli has his own stance on many issues and whether you agree or disagree is what you need to discuss. As soon as I see someone using these bullshit acronyms, I question their bias.
“I find your eagerness to group people into arbitrary groups like “SJW” really childish.”
There is nothing arbitrary about it.
“I’m sure Muslims find such a person far more offensive, and dangerous than someone who makes a game.”
This sounds like the kind of regressive liberalism and flawed cultural relativism that Eli was rejecting. To argue against his position you have to defend the idea that we can’t judge things like other cultural practices (eg FGM) on the basis that we don’t know who’s right.
In reality morality isn’t quite that subjective and arbitrary. We can say that there’s a difference between giving the twitter handle of a guy who creates a game about beating and raping women, and in setting up a guy who wrote about atheism to be stoned to death. If you think the two situations are comparable then that’s some messed up relativism you got going on there.
Plus, who uses the term “SJW” unironically?
“This sounds like the kind of regressive liberalism and flawed cultural relativism that Eli was rejecting.”
All I was saying was that a Muslim in Pakistan outing an atheists, or some Christian in Alabama outing a gay teacher, are as justified from their perspective as Eli feels he is when doxing people he doesn’t agree with. By supporting such an action he loses the moral high ground from which to argue they’re wrong.
The specific case is irrelevant. I would argue it’s never OK to publically dox someone. Even reporting someone to the police based on something they say or do online is problematic.
“By supporting such an action he loses the moral high ground from which to argue they’re wrong.”
The problem is that he addresses this criticism as one of bad cultural relativism. You’re right that the fundamentalist might feel justified in their action and view the situations as equivalent but we can say that they’re wrong and explain why they aren’t equivalent.
“The problem is that he addresses this criticism as one of bad cultural relativism.”
He may address it, but he does so poorly, or doesn’t understand the criticism. Let’s say we have a crime in Pakistan where the penalty is death, and a crime in the US where the penalty is death.
Eli supports our use of it, but not theirs. All he can say is you shouldn’t kill people for that. It becomes a debate over when the death penalty is justifiable, not if. I on the other hand say the death penalty is never justifiable. That gives me the moral high ground, He’s essentially being a hypocrite if he argues it’s ok when I do it and not when you do it.
“Eli supports our use of it, but not theirs. All he can say is you shouldn’t kill people for that. It becomes a debate over when the death penalty is justifiable, not if. I on the other hand say the death penalty is never justifiable. That gives me the moral high ground, He’s essentially being a hypocrite if he argues it’s ok when I do it and not when you do it.”
That’s not a good comparison as in the original case the game creator got his twitter handle released, and the blogger got named so that he could be punished with death. Eli explicitly said that he didn’t support harassment or calls for abuse, which would have him rule out the second example.
The fact is that it’s entirely possible to condone one action in one set of circumstances and then condemn a similar action with a completely different set of circumstances. There is no moral high ground in adopting an extreme form of relativism where we’re not allowed to hand out consequences to one person for one specific thing without handing out consequences to everyone for any possible thing.
“That’s not a good comparison as in the original case the game creator got his twitter handle released”
You’re obfuscating just as Eli did. The game creators twitter handle was easily connectable to his real identity, so it’s a distinction without any real difference.
“Eli explicitly said that he didn’t support harassment or calls for abuse, which would have him rule out the second example.”
Just as Bill O’Reilly explicitly said didn’t support harassment or abuse of “Tiller the baby killer”.
Just watched this video by Sargon of Akkad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42sW4gIk-A8 I’m not particularly a fan of his, but he expresses my perception, and opinion of Eli’s position perfectly in the first 7 minutes.
“You’re obfuscating just as Eli did. The game creators twitter handle was easily connectable to his real identity, so it’s a distinction without any real difference.”
I’m not obfuscating, the fact that it’s linked to his real identity is irrelevant to the point that you’re trying to make. It’s simply not comparable to somebody being sentenced to death for presenting atheistic views.
“Just as Bill O’Reilly explicitly said didn’t support harassment or abuse of “Tiller the baby killer”.”
That comparison doesn’t really work since Tiller didn’t do anything wrong.
And I didn’t really see any good argument from that video.
“I’m not obfuscating, the fact that it’s linked to his real identity is irrelevant to the point that you’re trying to make.”
It is relevant. You, and Eli in particular was implying that because it was JUST his twitter handle there was no danger to the information being released. I disagree, I’m sure there are crazy Anita Sarkeesian fans out there who might go after the guy, and potentially harm or even kill him.
“That comparison doesn’t really work since Tiller didn’t do anything wrong.”
And nether did the guy who designed the game except in your subjective opinion. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you understand it now.
“It is relevant. You, and Eli in particular was implying that because it was JUST his twitter handle there was no danger to the information being released.”
Nobody is saying or implying that, but the point is that there’s a difference between giving out a horrible person’s twitter handle so that his name is attached to his work and the slipper slope you’re throwing in where that means identifying anyone makes you responsible for their inevitable death that comes along with being made public online.
“I disagree, I’m sure there are crazy Anita Sarkeesian fans out there who might go after the guy, and potentially harm or even kill him.”
I mean, this is just a little unrealistic. If it was the anti-SJW side and gamergaters, etc, then yeah of course that would be a possibility since they’re known for harassment, death threats and violence (that’s the core of their position) but it seems unlikely from a Sarkeesian side.
“And nether did the guy who designed the game except in your subjective opinion. Thanks for making my point. Maybe you understand it now.”
You’re really just hammering home my point here – the cultural relativism that you’re clinging to is exactly the kind of regressive leftism that Eli was talking about.
In order to believe your point is valid you need to defend the idea that morality is subjective, and then you’d need to agree that we can’t judge cultural practices like FGM because “it’s their culture”. What Eli is saying is that things aren’t subjective. There is a clear and undeniable difference between attaching a guy’s twitter handle to his game where he rapes and beats women, and murdering a guy for writing an atheist blog.
You can see the difference right? Or are you seriously arguing that the world is so confused that you can’t tell the difference between the two? Are you actually arguing that everybody’s viewpoint is valid and nobody is right (or more right) than others? That’s simply crazy.
“Nobody is saying or implying that, but the point is that there’s a difference between giving out a horrible person’s twitter handle so that his name is attached to his work”
Again your subjective opinion that the person was horrible. I completely disagree. I see no difference between someone making a joke game, and someone committing apostasy, or being a homosexual in a middle eastern country. (there is nothing wrong with either) Except in the Muslims subjective opinion those things would be orders of magnitude worse, AND they would be reporting someone who was actually committing a crime based on their laws. If anything that would make their action more justifiable.
“You’re really just hammering home my point here – the cultural relativism that you’re clinging to is exactly the kind of regressive leftism that Eli was talking about.”
Except I’m not, and I can’t imagine you’re being anything but disingenuous when making that claim. In fact it’s you who is supporting such a position. When you say you are justified in doxing someone based on your subjective opinion, you’re supporting the position that outing someone based on a subjective opinion is justifiable. I’m the one who’s saying neither of you is justified.
“There is a clear and undeniable difference between attaching a guy’s twitter handle to his game where he rapes and beats women, and murdering a guy for writing an atheist blog.”
Duh, of course it’s different, but that’s irrelevant. No one should have their anonymity taken away from them, and potentially be harmed for expressing an opinion. My position is consistent, you’re saying it’s justifiable for anyone to harm anyone if they don’t like what the person is saying.
“Again your subjective opinion that the person was horrible. I completely disagree.”
It’s not subjective at all, they are an objectively horrible person. To blow your mind, I’m going to also say that FGM is also an objectively horrible practice. Are you really going to tell me that such a claim is “subjective” and that we shouldn’t talk about banning it because of that? Of course not, that would be a ridiculous position for you to hold.
“Except I’m not, and I can’t imagine you’re being anything but disingenuous when making that claim. In fact it’s you who is supporting such a position. When you say you are justified in doxing someone based on your subjective opinion, you’re supporting the position that outing someone based on a subjective opinion is justifiable. I’m the one who’s saying neither of you is justified.”
How am I being disingenuous? You are literally defending relativism. You’re saying it’s subjective and that we can’t say one is different from the other.
I’m making the opposite claim, that these things aren’t subjective and that we can clearly make claims about one thing being worse than the other.
“Duh, of course it’s different, but that’s irrelevant. ”
It’s not irrelevant, it’s the fundamental point that you keep failing to justify.
“No one should have their anonymity taken away from them, and potentially be harmed for expressing an opinion. My position is consistent, you’re saying it’s justifiable for anyone to harm anyone if they don’t like what the person is saying.”
No, your position is that we can’t judge anyone or provide consequences for their actions based on your belief in moral relativism. To you, everything is “subjective opinion”.
I’m saying that that’s not true. Assigning someone’s twitter handle to their work is objectively not the same as killing someone for having an atheist blog. They aren’t the same. If you can justify your claim in any way then I might be more likely to take it seriously, but if you keep re-asserting your beliefs at me then there’s nothing left of your position to address.
Importantly, there is no “right” to anonymity. Nobody should be harmed for things they say or do but they should face consequences, whether it be legal (if they’ve broken a law) or simply societal. You don’t have the right to start a game that encourages people to violently attack a person (like with the Sarkeesian game) and then cry about having your twitter handle released on the possibility that someone might attack you – what kind of messed up logic is that?
“It’s not subjective at all, they are an objectively horrible person.”
LOL, did God tell you that? I don’t think we need to continue this discussion.
“LOL, did God tell you that? I don’t think we need to continue this discussion.”
Why would I need a god to tell me that? You just spent the last reply telling me that I was disingenuous for insinuating that you were a relativist, and now suddenly the idea of objective facts is so absurd to you that it requires a god? Do you need the existence of a god in order to be able to say that FGM is objectively bad?
Which is it? You can’t hop and change between positions when it suits you and not expect me to call you out on your BS.
It’s okay if you want to be a relativist (as you clearly are), but all I’m saying is that you need to actually defend your position or justify/support it with some evidence. You can keep asserting your beliefs over and over again, with the hope that it’ll convince somebody.
“now suddenly the idea of objective facts is so absurd to you that it requires a god?”
You clearly don’t understand the difference between facts, and the subjective opinion you form based on facts. Given that it’s a fools errand for me to continue discussing this with you.
“You clearly don’t understand the difference between facts, and the subjective opinion you form based on facts. Given that it’s a fools errand for me to continue discussing this with you.”
Again, you can keep reasserting your opinion as if it were true but it would be much better if you could support or justify it in some way. If you can’t then that’s fine, but in future I’d recommend basing your beliefs on evidence and not gut feelings.
“Again, you can keep reasserting your opinion as if it were true but it would be much better if you could support or justify it in some way.”
Project much?
“Project much?”
That’s still not an argument for your position. You need to present arguments and evidence like I did to give reason as to why I should think you’re right. If you don’t, then you haven’t presented anything that I need to take seriously.
Thanks for the deconstruction Mike. The cadence of this guys voice was unbearable. The constant apologizing and repeating definitions was so annoying. The email seemed like a complete non issue. It is beyond me how someone can not feel safe because there professor believes that people should be able to wear whatever Halloween costume they like.
“repeating definitions was so annoying”
Repeating definitions seems like an important aspect of the discussion though given how often the terms are misunderstood. How many times have you heard people describe safe spaces as places where dissent isn’t allowed? Or heard trigger warnings described as censorship of material? It might be annoying for people who already know the definitions but it needs to be hammered home for some people to finally click.
“It is beyond me how someone can not feel safe because there professor believes that people should be able to wear whatever Halloween costume they like.”
I suppose that’s the beauty of living an incredibly privileged life, but for others who don’t have that kind of advantage it becomes a completely different issue. For starters, the Halloween issue was just another case of racial abuse that the students were regularly facing (there’s a decent writeup here: https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6#.3uan36rk6). In itself the email was obviously shitty but it wasn’t the entirety of the issue.
When you understand the climate of the Yale campus and the abuse that students of colour regularly have to put up with, it should hopefully become clear why they’d feel unsafe having the university endorse blackface parties and frats dressing up in KKK outfits. Even just basic empathy should help us understand why a group of people who regularly face harassment and violence would feel unsafe when the university sides with the people who want to dress up in KKK outfits over the people who are part of a group that were attacked and murdered by the KKK in the past.
The point of view from the person who didn’t let people inside was that noone without a Yale ID was allowed in. A girl tried bullying her way in using the race card claiming “It’s because I’m black isnt it!”, and once again SWJs leap to another boy crying wolf. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between Social Justice and The Justice System aside from the Justice System bothering to investigate both sides and caring if the accused is innocent or not? Social Justice has become the alternative medicine of justice, it’s feeling centered Woo now.
Except Eli explicitly states that if there’s evidence that he’s wrong then he’s happy to accept that, and goes on to explain why his position is still right even if those specific facts aren’t as he describes.
More importantly, it’s not like it’s ‘radical’ or surprising to note that many college students are racist and that racism is a major problem on campuses today.
I don’t think you’ve actually shown that he was wrong though. It sounds more like the justification of Status Quo Warriors which is used to ignore any possible racism without presenting any evidence to think it’s true.
Have we got so much time on our hands now that we can sit around and worry about trivial ass BS? We have to worry about sensitivity? We have to worry about peoples feelings?
Really?
When did the universe become kinder and gentler?
Where is this universe?
Its certainly not the real world.