AS239: Eli and James on Trigger Warnings

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Atheistically Speaking. This is episode 239, and I'm your host, Thomas Smith. All right, here it is, the very long-awaited and also quite long part three between Eli and James. This focuses on trigger warnings. I hope you've enjoyed this debate, and I will see you afterward.

0:00:53 Thomas: Going, because one thing we haven't even talked about is trigger warnings.

0:00:57 Guest: So I don't, I didn't, I do know what they are. I was familiar with the concept going into it, but I decided this was a topic I actually needed to look up to know more about if I was going to talk to you about it, because I'm not familiar with the relevant literature. And so, like I said, I wanted to bring up, in particular, I was talking about, I mentioned the problem with law school, law education.

And I mentioned the paper by Kim Champan, and I'm saying her name wrong, I know I'm saying it wrong, I'm having a hard time with that name. But it's called "Crisis and Trigger Warnings: Reflections on Legal Education and the Social Value of Law." It was published in Chicago Kent Law Review, 2015. Now, I want to bring this up particularly because she's pointing at a particular problem, and her solution is actually trigger warnings. So it's contrary to my point of view.

There are other law professors, Jenny Suk, like I mentioned, Alan Dershowitz at Harvard, Eugene Volokh at UCLA, that, um, all bring up the same problem. And this, I know, is something you're a little bit familiar with, Eli, uh, that, that rape law, you actually now, I know you said at some point that if you knew that there were professors that were shying away from teaching rape law in first year criminal law, and it was documented, then you would recognize that as a major problem. And that is exactly what these papers document, is that this is actually happening.

And And Chambonpin, say it really slowly if I'm not mispronouncing it, her paper specifically cites, "let's use trigger warnings if it means we can keep teaching rape law." The problem has gotten so significant because, obviously, if they stop teaching rape law adequately, then you're going to have underprepared legal representation for people who have been raped. So you need people to learn rape law, and social justice, of course, wants rape law thoroughly covered.

0:02:33 Guest: Covered, and it is these, what do they call them, edge cases or whatever, there's a specific name for them, um, that are the controversial ones, and they are upsetting to people. And so she specifically acknowledges that maybe trigger warnings are the way, but let's not lose rape law, because right now what's happening is rape law, is people are staying out of it, they're not covering the kinds of cases that need to get covered, and so on and so forth. So you explain that to me, because I'm confused, why are trigger warnings making people not cover rape law? No, no, no, no, no, trigger warnings are not, complaints from students that it's causing them to be triggered and upset, and then they complain to their, their, so you have compassionate professors typically, and you have a, uh, very compassionate and willing to listen to administration typically. And so you have kids who are, are in law school, who are having a hard time dealing with, with this.

0:03:24 Guest: So what I'm pointing out is that because of the nature of the, the, very sensitive, this high sensitivity. We have schools, we have professors within law schools choosing to teach less and less and sometimes completely cut rape law out of their criminal law courses. But isn't the solution to that a trigger warning? Trigger warnings are one solution to that. And that's the one that Chen Banpin puts forth. There are other solutions as well. And one of the reasons that these are these are mentioned is because law school already should be a relatively emotionally safe space. So safe place. I'll use that wording. And one OF the things that's known about the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, for instance, as put out by the Institute of Medicine and National Academies Press, is that aversion or avoidance makes the problem worse.

0:04:16 Guest: And the way to treat it is to engage with it in a environment that you know is safe, which is the cornerstone of cognitive behavioral therapy. Again, which is trigger warning. Like, again, we don't use exposure therapy as a surprise. We don't run up to someone and we're like, hey, man, one second. Spiders, right? We're like. All right. We're going to walk over to some trigger warnings. So the debate about this is one solution to the problem is to introduce trigger warnings, and some people make a case like this one paper that I mentioned. That it is the way to go and other people make a case that there are better ways to go. For instance, a widely recommended which is backed by the American Psychological Association, written by Kathleen Smith and their monitor on psychology from 2014.

0:05:01 Guest: It was backed at the annual symposium in forensic psychology in 2015, "Is There a Research Basis for Using Trigger Warnings?" By Lorna and Donna Veraldi. And then it's backed also by the notion of, sorry, by the National Academies Press Institute of Medicine paper, that what you have is a situation where you can upfront, and this is another recommendation, that my particular view is that it's superior to trigger warnings. So trigger warnings are a solution, and there are bad reasons for them, and there are good reasons for them. I admit this, I recognize it, as a matter of fact. But another opportunity is to prepare through specific training and orientation training for both professors and for students how to recognize when a student needs to be recused from class or excused from a set of material, and where they can reach those resources in a real-time basis.

0:05:56 Guest: And one of the primary reasons supporting that approach as opposed to trigger warnings, except when it's going to be something that would be very widely. I mean, a lot of professors do cast a trigger warning type heads up if they know something's likely to be upsetting. If it's highly likely, then they're going to bring it up. But if it's not highly likely. One of the reasons is because triggers are very, very complicated. So, for instance, I had a circumstance in my life, not to rely on anecdotal evidence, but just to kind of point out to where pretty much, every time the state of Pennsylvania was mentioned for a little while, I felt a little bit weird. OK, so that the state, the word Pennsylvania became a trigger for me. Obviously, I'm not going to go around. There's nobody who's going to put, you know, trigger warning Pennsylvania. But that was a particular trigger for a particular trauma that I had to work through.

0:06:45 Guest: So I've experienced this, and a trigger warning, you know, would have been completely ludicrous to ask for. Now, I know you recognize that there's no way, you don't. So something like, you know, a, a he said, she said argument that somebody may have experienced revolving around a traumatic rape, I understand that's a different circumstance. So, you know, using it as the professor's discretion is still a viable option, and it's still something they can do. However, because of the nature of triggers themselves, a different recommendation is actually to spend a little time in student and professor orientation in dealing with the problems if and when they arise, and directing people to the therapy that they're trying to get. Um, a really big difference. It's another approach, and it's pretty hard not to take it seriously as, as a competing option to trying to do trigger warnings, because trigger warnings can do other things as well.

0:07:38 Guest: Well, for instance, in literature, they can, they can have a problem. OK, so in literature, film, you can have a piece, and the entire emotional engagement of the piece relies upon some surprise. So I will use an example from my life again, when I was in high school, and I had no trigger warning for this, and this kind of speaks to a difference of time and all of this stuff.

I was sitting in my psychology class in high, high school, and our professor decided that we needed to watch "The Crying Game," I don't know if you've seen this, this movie, okay.

And so you have a bunch of, Southern, because I was in the South, you have a lot of Southern hillbilly boys in the mid-90s who know pretty much nothing, have had no exposure whatsoever to any of the themes that might be in that movie, and not to pull a, you know, uh, Snape kills Dumbledore moment, but at the end, what happens in that film is you have a woman who, a man actually, who is pretending to be a woman in order to have a love affair, and then they have all this stuff happen, you know, and there's kissing and all this.

0:08:34 Guest: And frankly, the man pretending to be a woman is attractive. And so you have a bunch of guys in this classroom, here's what happened, that were aroused by or attracted to this woman, and then suddenly find out she's a guy, the end of the movie. And that they were watching, you now, two men kissing on screen. They were not emotionally prepared for this. If you put a trigger warning on that, you completely rip away the entire point of holding the revelation of that fact off to the end. That movie could have been scripted where you see the person dressing up at the beginning, you know what's going on, you have dramatic irony all through, but it's not. The entire emotional impact of that movie depends upon the exact thing that, if you were dealing it to a bunch of Southern hillbilly boys, you would put a trigger warning on. If you put a trigger warning there, you diminish the educational quality.

0:09:20 Guest: And there are copious examples of this. So it is possible that the trigger warning steals the show and diminishes the educational quality. So it's another reason. What would the trigger warning be in the case of The Crying Game? Penis? No, the, the trigger warning there would be something along the lines, remember the audience that I'm talking to, because trigger warnings are going to be audience dependent. I'm talking about, at this point, a group of young adolescent boys in the South before gay anything was anywhere on the radar as far as people in the South knew. We're okay talking about a highly insular environment at that time, and so we could, we could change to a different example if we need to, but this is the one that came to mind immediately, so this is what I'm running with. So at the time, it would be very upsetting to, say, have cross-dressing or, uh, male-on-male kissing.

0:10:12 Guest: But the second you say male on mail kissing is a trigger warning and the guys are like, "Okay," and they watch the movie, they watch moving, they watch movie, they watch movie, and then the only people kissing are the girl that they've had the hots for and then. And they're like, "Hmm," and it kind of blows the whole thing. The problem with that example is that trigger warnings aren't designed for things you don't like. They're designed for thing usually that activate your PTSD. They're design for things that are, you know, incredibly problematic for you. They are designed for think that set off a strong emotional response. And so let's not diminish the strong emotional responses of a young adolescent boy who has not been familiarized with the idea of homosexuality yet. Because it was very upsetting. There were people in my class that melted the hell down. They questioned their sexuality, not in a healthy way.

0:10:59 Guest: All of a sudden, this comes down like a waterfall. You got the teacher sitting up in front of the class laughing because he knew what was coming. This was that environment. I'm not saying that that was conducive. I am not encouraging a callous jerk move by a teacher in order to make some kind of a point.

What I'm saying is that you did have people in that room who were definitely not emotionally prepared for that, who were being challenged on their deeply held Christian beliefs that that is extremely morally wrong besides even the deception. And they were not in any way prepared for it.

So this is something that not a trigger of PTSD, but a trigger of an extreme emotional reaction that is very upsetting to the educational environment that they were in, which is the other goal of trigger warnings, is to foster a positive educational environment by not upsetting people unduly. This was people who were the exact kind of candidates for the lesser need of trigger warning who, if they had been provided with one, it would have completely undermined the educational opportunity that the film presents. Sense. And so you, do you think it was an educational opportunity or do you think it wasn't emotionally damaging one? Or do you think it was both for me? I think I don't, I didn't, I didn't have a particularly strong emotional reaction to it. I found it surprising. And you know, at the time being young and things a little upsetting, but I wasn't particularly upset by it.

I might be revealing my bias here, but to me the comparison of a homophobe and I'm not saying your classmates were homophobes, but but I'm just using... They were. Many of them were. The comparison of a homophobe being exposed to gay sex is not... No, I'm talking about individuals who are, in fact, in this case, minors, who were not emotionally prepared for what was presented, and that is in an educational setting where they had no control. This is exactly the kind of thing that trigger warnings are designed for.

0:12:41 Thomas: Couldn't we we clear up a lot of the confusion here by just finding an example that I think Eli would have less of a problem? Let's say there's a piece of literature or film where the crux of the plot is going to involve a rape. And if you were to say, yeah, or something, And if you were to issue, can we just accept it, Eli, for the sake of argument, that there could be a film or a literature where the trigger warning would greatly diminish the capacity for the film to make its point, or whatever. Could we just accept that for the sake of argument?

0:12:57 Guest: Or a murder. Dumbledore gets killed.

0:13:14 Guest: And these aren't...

0:13:15 Thomas: It's

0:13:15 Guest: Aren't These far between. There are many examples. The fact that one doesn't come to mind is an indication of the amount of literature I didn't engage with as a math major. Obviously, if you say something like, you know, careful, there's murder in this movie, it could reduce. But not to the extent that it's significant and certainly not by comparison to activating someone's PTSD. I mean, I just don't see the comparison. I think you're right. I just I don't really see how it's a valid objection. So, here's what I'm saying. I'm not saying what's right or wrong. I am saying that a trigger warning contains the potential. So, this is one thing that has to be considered when you consider the full spectrum of what is appropriate for trigger warnings or not. It carries the potential to undermine the academic goal in cases where they are needed.

0:14:05 Guest: And so, that is a negative for trigger warning. I didn't say that trigger warnings are in de facto bad because of this. This is, you got to watch that. That's not what I said. I said, this is one reason not to, if we're putting a pros and cons box, you know, column down, trigger warnings just got a con. I'm not saying that cons is going to win. They just got to check on the con side. Okay.

So a pro would be that you do exactly what you just said, that you're going to alert somebody who has that relevant PTSD trigger to a possible PTSD trigger. And like I said, the literature seems to pretty well agree. So we're talking about, like I said, the Annual Symposium in Forensic Psychology, the National Institute of Medicine, the American Psychological Association.

These authorities in the relevant fields seem to agree that a better alternative to trigger warnings would be to counsel people to deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis where they arise and to give a, so the APA, I will tell you that the APA has a statement that, you know, we don't know the right answer to this. We don't see reasons to recommend them, but we do make, see that they make sense under certain circumstances. So if it's something that is highly likely to be very upsetting to somebody, you might mention it, but there's another alternative and a combination therapy. This is like when people are like, like capitalism, no, socialism, no, capitalism, as if there's not blended economies.

You know, if you're going to watch a video of ISIS beheading somebody, that might warrant, you know, hey, guess what? You're going see somebody you're gonna see something really gruesome if you watch this, that that that kind of thing. Again, also remember the context here. We're not talking about a horror show.

We're talking about a law school or a graduate school program or an undergraduate school class in which the professor still has to keep up with the idea that certain curriculum has – most professors are extraordinarily sensitive people who give a crap about their students.

0:16:03 Guest: And so we're not talking about people who are going out to try to cause injury. And so the common sense and compassion of the professor can certainly lead. I'm just saying that the literature seems to indicate that the answer to the question, is there a research basis for trigger warnings, is predominantly no, and they offer an alternative, which is to prepare students in their orientation and prepare professors in their course orientations for directing people to the relevant avenues for help if they need it. So wait, I want to address that, because it seems that you've broken down sort of three possible options. The first is trigger warnings, which some data supports, right? The second is for, it seems like for professors to recognize when a student is in conflict and know how to handle it in the classroom.

0:16:56 Guest: And then the third appears to be for the professors to meet with students during their orientation. Orientation, they're, one, no, no, no, there's a third one. No, the professors don't meet with the orientation, both students and professors, and they're suggested, so this is a suggested solution that's in the literature, I didn't make this up, um, I didn't think this up on my own, this, I'm not saying, hey, here's an alternative, no, this is in the literature already, this is where the center of the debate around trigger warnings in classrooms goes, um, the alternative proposed in the literature to the trigger warning approach includes a blended approach. So that we're not talking about, you know, don't, I personally think that if something's going to be extremely gruesome or extremely likely to be upsetting, that a trigger warning is not necessarily inappropriate. I don't have a problem in those contexts with it.

0:17:43 Guest: I think it should be a very limited tool. The third option, though, that was proposed in the literature, which I did not invent, is that students during their orientation are given direct information that tells them if you are experiencing. So first thing you need to remember is that a college campus and a college classroom is meant to be a safe place where you can learn. And some of the material you may encounter might be emotionally upsetting. If that is the case and you experience the following symptoms, then you may want to speak up or excuse yourself or whatever. And these are the fine kinds of directories that, you know, you can go to this, this building or this agency or this, whatever, to try to work it out. Or you can meet with your professor after class and talk with them about it or something, you know, along those lines. So don't, and don't be, don't be, so I'm just telling you what the suggestion is to tell students upfront, this might happen.

0:18:32 Guest: Here's what to do if it does. And then tell help professors up front. This is what it might look like. So before the semesters start, this is what it may look like if a student's having a meltdown from something you covered in class. And this is what you should do. You should encourage the student to leave the space.

You should encourage a student to possibly go to the counseling center or whatever it happens to be, whatever's appropriate, whatever the experts that work with this say is the correct thing to do. That is the second alternative. There are not three alternatives here.

I don't think the second and the first can't be used together, that's what I also said, in fact there are people who argue that they should be, and I think in certain cases, like if you're going to show a video of beheading somebody like ISIS, those videos exist, that you might want to tell people about that, that's pretty gruesome, it's likely to be upsetting to a large number of people, if you want to show something that's going to be likely to highly triggering, you may want to show people, now there's a further problem that arises,

0:19:27 Guest: This is again, and documented, like where you have the thing with law, if students continually recuse themselves and say, well, I'm not emotionally equipped to deal with rape law. What happens with that student? If they say completed very little of the rape law requirement for the law school, what happens? That's another question. I don't know the answer to it. So don't press me on it. I'm just saying, that's a question that has to become brought into this. There's documentation.

0:19:49 Thomas: Get Eli's response on this, he's been trying to butt in for a while, let

0:19:53 Guest: So, I mean, well it's actually really interesting because I think we're really in sync with a lot lot of things, you know, I, and I actually, that's the beginning, yeah, I, I stole this from Cecil and uh from cog disc so I'll use it again, which is that I, I sort of consider trigger warnings to be like a peanut allergy, and I think you agree, but not, you know what I mean, like, yeah, if you eat a peanut and you're allergic you die, but as opposed to become upset or have a triggered, I mean, I've watched somebody with war PTSD have a telephone set off their PTSD and I know what it looks like, another fact about about PTSD by the way, is the longer you have it the worse it gets, that's something they only realized in the past decade about it.

0:20:31 Thomas: Eli, get his joke about peanut allergies in, come on can

0:20:33 Guest: Well, no, it's not actually a joke because it's – yes, absolutely, people who have peanut allergies should know that they should carry their everypens with them. By the same token, if the professor brings brownies to class, as mine did because I went to NYU on a regular basis, and that's all we did was just eat brownies, they would say, oh, by the way, there's nuts in these. Now, the response to trigger warnings, the anti-trigger warning platform, which you're obviously not representing here, has nothing to do with what you've just expressed. And when we talk about people who are, quote unquote, against trigger warnings. What they paint is a picture of these trembling, absurd, you know. Have you been on Tumblr? Yeah, these trembling absurd. Trigger warning blood, trigger warning bunnies.

0:21:21 Guest: I mean, I'm not kidding. This stuff, I've seen these. So granted, that's not made its way to the college, but this is the spread. Like I said, where's my trigger warning, Pennsylvania? I mean, I worked that out, but where is it? But I mean the point is that trigger warnings have a specific meaning and use. And again, this sort of seems to be the theme of the conversation that the abuse of X does not bring X up for ridicule, because all it does is take the people who have legitimate uses of that, and make them feel attacked, and make them feel less than. You know, I have veterans who write to me all the time. I'm not quite sure about that with a ridicule. I mean, you're a comedian. You ridicule a lot of stuff, right? I ridicule very, very carefully.

0:22:08 Guest: I get, because I'm just going to give you an example now, I get—because I talk about trigger warnings quite a bit on various shows—I've had soldiers and veterans who have PTSD write to my and say, thank you so much for talking about trigger warning this way. By the same token, I make jokes about microaggressions and triggers all the time. The reason why I do both, the reason why when it's serious time I talk about the importance of this and why I can joke about that is that someone who does the research on me, someone who looks up what I actually believe when I'm not joking about a movie can go, okay, this is someone who's joking on the side. A lot of the humor and a lot of the vitriol aimed at trigger warnings is not, don't worry, we're all on side. Let's talk about out the sillier elements of this. I poke fun at the sillier elements of a lot of the things I believe.

0:22:55 Guest: Safe spaces, trigger warnings. I mean, we used it in an interstitial in GAM two weeks ago. We used your safe space during a biker gang meeting, you know, and the people who listen to that acknowledge, okay, Eli gets it. Eli understands. And the anti-trigger warning movement does not come to this conversation from a place of, well, obviously we understand the people who need it. We understand how important this is, but aren't there occasional silly uses of it. Again, that's not the message being conveyed. And unless I'm just incredibly thick and a lot of social justice people are just incredibly thin, what's one of two things is happening. Either anti social justice, people are communicating badly or social justice. People are just completely thick and are unable to get the larger meanings of much of the humor and vitriol aimed at trigger.

0:23:44 Guest: My, my experience with this, if you want my guess as to where this This backlash comes from besides the fact that high profile pieces show the sillier examples. And again, I don't think you're going to find too many people, except on maybe a slippery slope argument or some of these other things that I started to say, but didn't get a chance to, who would say that there should never, ever be a trigger warning on any content. I brought up the ISIS beheading video that brought up. I didn't specifically bring up, but I think, you know, brutal rape or even, you knows, depictions of date rape because they happen. These may warrant, may warrant. And there's a discussion to be had about that. But the discussion has to be informed upon the relevant evidence. And it has to Be engaged in that where it balances a variety of different objectives.

0:24:32 Guest: One of those is the quality of education. One, one of those is the overall impact. So for instance, there's a, I don't have his name in front of me, I'm sorry, but there's a law professor at the University of Kansas who engages in rape law. He was answering to the example from Jenny Suk from Harvard and he still engages with it and he often has, I do not know whether he uses trigger warnings or not, but I know that he engages in the topic and then he has students write him later saying that it actually, that they had endured sexual trauma and that engaging with it in class in that impartial way and that safe environment allowed them to start to work through their problems. And so it's very difficult to say, like I said, this, the point is that there needs to be a open discussion about this.

0:25:18 Guest: And I don't think the people that you're, you're there are going to be some who are going to be anti-trigger warnings on a blanket notion, but I don't think that there, there are going to be a lot of people who are against the idea that if something's particularly gruesome or upsetting that giving people heads up or avoiding it altogether is the appropriate thing to do. But avoiding it all together is its own set of problems. So you have to look at, like I said, the individual outcome for the students or the people involved, and you have to look as has been documented is that you have law schools backing down from covering rape law thoroughly, which hurts rape victims more than anybody. You have in the Journal of Social Work Education, Susan Robbins documented that you have this increasing problem where students of social work are refusing to engage with the material regarding domestic abuse or sexual abuse.

0:26:10 Guest: And this is a freaking big problem because these people, by their statement of ethics, by the National Association for Social Workers statement of ethics, are not qualified to be social workers if they do that. They are literally not qualified to be sexual workers if they don't engage with that material. So like I said, the question, the question of what do you do with the student who needs to be set aside because of a trigger warning, whether the trigger warning was good or not, what do you do these students in order to meet their educational goals to create effective professionals has to be answered in the context of this entire discussion. And so, yes, I mean, trigger warnings have a value, but they – if the point being made is that students who walk out of the classroom every time that sexual assault gets mentioned because they have triggers and they can't hear it, should, I mean, no one's making the point that that student should be able to be a lawyer in rape law.

0:27:01 Guest: No one's talking about that. I mean that's exactly what that paper in social work education is about, is that you have people that are trying to become social workers who have gone through this and that refuse to engage with the relevant practicums regarding domestic abuse or sexual abuse. But that is not a trigger warning. That's a student being unwilling to learn about a specific subject, which nobody defends. I mean, I shouldn't say nobody. I haven't heard anybody defend. If nobody's defending it, Eli, you have to be able to answer why you're having papers published in social work education and in the Chicago Kent Law Review saying that this is a crisis in education in those two fields. I have no idea what the connection between a trigger warning and a professor not teaching rape law is. So there's two things. That's what I don't... There's two things.

0:27:46 Guest: Not teaching rape law is a way to get around having to deal with the possible problems. Well, that's the professor's fault. That's not a trigger warning's fault, that is a professor needing to learn to give a trigger warning. No, because at the same time you have to deal with the fact that you have students who are not going to engage with necessary material in the course if you give trigger warnings. And this is a very complex and nuanced issue with a lack of clarity in what the right answer is. And to say that that you know the right answer is nothing short of absolute moral arrogance. It's nothing short of it. But do you understand that there's a very big difference between approving of a student who thinks that they should be able to take a class and only come to two of them because of their trigger warnings and get an A anyways?

0:28:33 Guest: Eli, first of all, I don't take the position at all. I don't know what the right answering is on this. I say that this is a position that is a thoroughgoing debate that needs to be had on the evidence, on the relevant evidence. Right. And I'm not saying that you're representing one side of the debate. What I'm saying is the other side ofthe debate that you've put forward that you're educating me about, because I haven't heard it. So how on earth would you think that I don't recognize both sides of thedebate if I'msaying I don't know which side to fall on? I don't think that you don't recognize it. I'm not making the accusation that you don't recognize it. What I'm saying is, because you're the oneeducating me about this other side of the issue that I haven't heard before. I'm asking you the questions that come up in my mind, which is that when someone says, and again, I know this is not your argument, but when someone says, well, one of the results of trigger warnings is that professors have stopped teaching rape law.

0:29:26 Guest: I don't see how those two are connected, except that the professors seem to not, it's almost like, well, if we're not going to play. Eli, I see your fundamental misunderstanding now. It's not the the effect of trigger warnings that cause that. And if I said so, I misspoke. It is the effect of the mentality that encourages the need for trigger warnings and their request that is encouraging that. The fact that you have students that either, not that they walk out, that you have students who are unwilling to engage with the material or that have a very hard time or make, especially because it's the nature of the beast right now, especially in this victimhood culture, is to make formal complaints to the university. Hey, my professor covered rape law and didn't tell me about it in the first place. So here's a complaint. This makes it so the professor is It's like, fuck it, I'm not teaching that anymore. Well, wait, I want to pause you because it's very important.

0:30:12 Guest: Covered rape law and didn't give me a trigger warning is different than my professor covered rape law. If someone goes and says my professor covering rape law, that person has nothing to contribute to the conversation and nobody who's pro-trigger warning. That's where you're absolutely wrong. That person has all of their law school tuition and the administration's desire to have it to contribute the conversation. Well, that's about universities needing to take the initiative to educate. The fact that universities are too afraid to speak back to students is not the fault of the students in that situation. It's the fault of the universities. They are educating institutions. It's actually a reciprocating environment. On the one hand, it's that the universities have put such a high value, which is good, on equality that allows that mentality to arise in the first place.

0:31:00 Guest: It is also the fact that the educational facility is, sorry, that the students are making demands that their entire place stay emotionally and mentally safe for them at all times. Wait, that's a different subject though. I've covered that already, Eli. That is things that are happening. Brown University put it on flyer under the door of every dorm room that they wanted the entire campus to be a safe space in that context. They put it in the newspaper the day after. We've already talked about the difference between a safe place and a safe space. Yes, yes, yes. But us sorting out the difference between the meanings of the words doesn't change the fact that the administration is caught in a bad place. And when it is siding, it has to either side with the professors or with the students.

0:31:45 Guest: And right now the environment causes it to side with the students, which has a net bad result. Well, that this conversation all has to rely on those consequences, but the blame is not going to the universities. The universities are obligated in those situations to educate, not to compromise. I mean, you know, when I went to NYU, I had lots of bad ideas about how much you want them to compromise a class. So, so does the universe, does the school, Does the law school have, should it have a policy then that says, Hey, if you're going to cover rape law, you need to put trigger warnings. Absolutely. Why would they not? Because right there, you just said exactly what you said the university shouldn't do. You said that the university should stand up and educate. Why should they have to, why should they make a policy that is requiring one point of view in this topic?

0:32:32 Guest: Because you don't fail to educate someone when you ask, when you give them a trigger warning, there's nothing, nothing demeans education by giving them a trick. Articles in the Journal of Social Work Education and in the Chicago Kent Law Review saying that it's not the trigger warning. It is the mentality behind the trigger morning and the results that it's having are creating a crisis in education in these fields. But James, you keep jumping back between the two. You keep going.

I go, well, what does a trigger warning have to do with that? And then you go, they don't want to learn about the subject. And I go. Yeah, that's terrible. And you go. And that's why they shouldn't get trigger warnings. That's not what I said. I've never said that they shouldn't get trigger warning university require them. And if you say yes, then you're saying that the institution should fall down on a particular side of this argument, which is different from the universe.

You should take a stand and enforce education. But there's a difference between, because the one side of the argument is trigger warnings, which cost nothing and are a net good.

0:33:25 Guest: And on the other side- No, no, no. Stop, stop, stop. You can't, you have not established or proven that they are a net good or that they cost nothing. They cost a small amount, but that's beside the point.

0:33:38 Guest: It's significant. I'm just saying that you don't have the sufficient basis to assert that you know that they're a net good. Otherwise, the relevant fields would not be having a huge debate where they're publishing academic articles about it and having conferences dedicated to it. The articles being published are about students refusing to engage in material, not about students who want trigger warnings. There is a difference between the two. Let me read to you the title of the article from Social Work Education highlighting this problem in social work. It's titled Sticks and Stones, Trigger Warnings, Microaggressions, and Political Correctness. And its theme is we have a crisis in social worker education because we are unable to adequately prepare students because of the mentality lying behind these things.

0:34:25 Guest: But that's that's she that's about Robbins. The author also cites that this problem is likely to be endemic, although she doesn't know in clinical psychology also. Well, so that's a that's. About your idea of victimhood culture, and I can certainly address that, but it doesn't have anything to do with trigger warnings, which is what we're talking about. Trigger warnings is in the title of the article. Yeah, it has something. I understand that it's I understand. That it's in the. Title of the. Article. But Chicago. Law review. Crisis and trigger warnings. Reflect. I understand the legal. No, I understand the word is in there. It has something to do with it. Well, it has something to do it according to the author. What the author has not talked about is the correlation.

0:35:08 Guest: Thank you. What the author hasn't talked about is the correlation between trigger warnings and refusing to engage subject material that one wants to be a part of. Is there a research basis for trigger warnings at the annual symposium in Forensic Psychology 2015? Answer, no. Right, but that's That's that is. And again, forgive me for using the fallacies, but that's just argument from ignorance. That's we don't know. Therefore, maybe not, you know, because that's I'm sorry. We have a con.

0:35:37 Thomas: We Try, I've not got a hard time even tracking this disagreement. Can We go Ahead.

0:35:39 Guest: We have. Yeah, we have a controversial topic here. And my I'm going to make my point very, very clearly. We don't Know the right answer. And the research literature is indicating that this is a major problem. And those familiar with the research leader literature are indicating that that this is a major problem. And that's, that's my whole culture. That's my whole point. Well, it's a, it is a feature of victimhood culture, which another set of papers indicates is its own major problem, right? But, but not that, but I just want to point out that none of the articles that you just pointed out. And again, I think you've made your point very clearly. And I hope that I haven't harped on it too much. None of the particles you pointed out pointed out why a trigger warning is a problem. They've, they've very clearly made the case as why victimhood culture is a problem. And certainly in the cases where students won't, don't want to engage certain subject matter and still want to be a part of that field.

0:36:32 Guest: I think that's a very interesting point to make and what, but it has nothing to do with trigger warnings because what they haven't said is we found students who get trigger warnings do X, Y, Z. We found students Who get trigger warning do worse in this or can only handle X,Y,Z. And the The difference is, while I completely agree, you know, we don't know. Again, you've provided a bunch of research proving that we don'T know. The answer to we DON'T know is not scorn and mockery. I've pulled some of these up. So let's see some quotes. Viraldi at the Israel Research Basis for Trigger Warnings. They call these efforts to install trigger warnings as fixtures in classrooms as well-intentioned but futile and chilling. And they call it a crusade. And they recommend what I already told you is another alternative as an alternative.

0:37:20 Guest: I don't say why it's ineffective and chilling. But their whole paper is about why it is ineffective and killing. That's what their whole papers about. I'm summarizing from the conclusion instead of reading the entire academic paper to you. You would assume that these people have made their case in this kind of academic literature before they make such a conclusion.

0:37:45 Guest: What is the another one of these papers?

0:37:47 Thomas: No, but again, are they arguing for... I really want to try to track down where the disagreement is, because it's weird.

0:37:54 Guest: I don't know, actually know where it is either. I mean, I think the disagreement is that Eli wants to hear exactly why trigger warnings themselves are the problem. Whereas I've given kind of an overview point of point of view of the literature that says that there are better solutions. I think what you've done is say, well, I think you've offered great solutions and I think every trigger warning proponent would agree with those solutions. I don't think any trigger warning component would say, no, professors shouldn't, you know, students shouldn't be given an orientation to talk about mental health resources or anything like that. I think anyone who said no, students have no responsibility in these cases. You don't need to carry your EpiPen. Everyone just needs to give up peanuts. That's something that's actually a little bit of a problem in the United States is that there are places that are like, no, we're not going to do any allergy training. We're just going to ban peanuts from the building.

0:37:56 Thomas: Yeah, well, let's try to...

0:38:44 Guest: Now, obviously, deadly consequences, totally different story. But what you've presented is a series of articles, which are very interesting, and I'm very excited to read about victimhood culture and how it affects education. And I'm interested in that, but not specifically how trigger warnings specifically are problematic, except that they go along with. Well, one of the things that they do is they encourage avoidance, which is actually one of the symptoms and additional like exacerbating factors in PTSD. They're not a cure. They cause the problem to get worse. And this is, this is the standard, the literal standard of, of PTSD care indicates that, you know, you said it earlier, you don't want them sprung on you, but the only, all you need to get around that is, Hey, you're in law school.

0:39:31 Guest: Sometimes stuff like this, you're taking rape law, this might come up. And then trigger warning is it's redundant. It's redundant, but if it, but we, we practically, right, we don't have a, we don't know a study about it, but pragmatically as someone who's worked in classrooms, as someone who has worked with trigger warnings, who knows about trigger warnings who required one and didn't get one and was upset because of it, we can see the direct benefits of trigger warnings.

0:39:49 Thomas: ...about trigger warnings. You acquired one and didn't get one and was upset because of it. We can see the direct benefits of trigger warnings

0:39:57 Guest: Warnings. My question is, what's the cost?

0:39:57 Thomas: My question is, what's the cost? It's

0:40:00 Guest: It's redundant, but it takes two seconds.

0:40:00 Thomas: Redundant, but it takes two seconds.

0:40:02 Guest: It takes a second.

0:40:02 Thomas: It takes a second.

0:40:03 Guest: The cost has to be absolutely significant. If the cost includes whatever it is causing, the most relevant journals for these fields are saying that there's a crisis in their field that is connected to trigger warning use. Yeah, but they haven't shown where.

0:40:04 Thomas: Be absolutely significant

0:40:17 Guest: Yes, they have. I just didn't read the papers to you.

0:40:17 Thomas: Well, then there's not much we can do. If we're going to say the paper says that there's a problem caused by trigger warnings, there's really not much of a discussion we can have other than, yeah.

0:40:22 Guest: Exactly. All right. Well, I'm happy to read the paper and find out specifically what about trigger warnings are problematic.

0:40:31 Thomas: Yeah. What I think is so curious is that, James, you already said in the beginning that you see it as useful in particular terms, in particular occurrences like an ISIS video, etc. So do you think these papers are saying even those are harmful and lead to this problem? Or do they paint some sort of line of the type of trigger warning that's okay?

0:40:51 Guest: It's not that they say that – I don't think – and this is, I think, what Eli wants. Eli wants there to be this hard evidence that trigger warnings themselves are harmful. But I don't know that they actually say that trigger warning themselves are harmful unless they get absolutely ridiculous and start taking up so much time. It's more that they're actually, in many regards, fairly pointless. And so the net good that Eli is saying that he's observed is a wonderful, wonderful thing. And I'm glad he's observed it, and it seems to have worked out. And in some cases, it's no doubt going to be the case that they benefit the situation. Like I said, with ISIS videos or certain depictions of particularly brutal crime or rape or something like that, or awful trauma, all of these situations are ones where this is a valid discussion.

0:41:41 Guest: And the point is that the papers seem to largely be saying that the attempt to use them and therefore the mandating of them is misguided, particularly in light of the fact that you have entire fields who are recognizing that there's a crisis in education that's following from the mindset of, hey, I need a trigger warning so I can figure out what to avoid. And professors are like an easier solution is I'm just not going to teach some of this stuff. Or sometimes they're like, OK, just step out. And so you're having a diminished sense of diminishing quality of education in these circumstances where it's I'm not saying that I know the answer to this. I'm saying that the relevant literature, which is what I'm appealing to, says that this is a major problem, and it ties it directly to the mentality that's calling for trigger warnings, where most of these papers, to summarize them, seem to say roughly the same thing, is that they are largely, except in kind of these obvious cases, largely useless.

0:42:38 Guest: Ruthless, like I said, you would never be able to come up with a adequate trigger warning for the State of Pennsylvania association that I had. Triggers are very myriad, they're very complicated, um, so when Eli goes to like peanuts and saying, of course I've already outlined a critical difference between that, but death and being upset are not the same thing, um, and being triggered in a classroom is a perfect flag that says, oh shit, I might need therapy for this. This is a serious problem because, because PTSD is not an identity. It is a identifiable, treatable problem that has a course of treatment that is recognized and effective, which is cognitive behavioral therapy, including exposure therapy under the direction of a qualified therapist. So if you are sitting in a classroom, which should be safe, and something triggers you, being directed to a therapist is exactly the kind of, I mean, it's not fun in the moment, but it is exactly that kind of opportunity that you need to realize that you have this problem that will prevent you from being an effective professional in the field that you're trying to work in.

0:43:33 Guest: So it's hard to say. And I say personally, I don't know, maybe they are a net good, but I don't think they are. I suspect they're not, but we don't have the evidence to support the claim that Eli made that says they are in net good that costs nothing. So yes, we should do them.

I mean, what, aside from the, I mean cause again, we don't have a survey of trigger warnings and how many people say they're useful, but We do have, you know, thousands and thousands of people. The point here isn't useful. The point is what the result, the outcome is in terms of well-being for the individual that's suffering the trigger and the educational outcomes of both the school, all of its students, therefore, and that individual as well.

Jonathan Haidt noted very clearly that the schools implementing this mentality are doing exactly the opposite. It. They're doing exactly what the standard of care on PTSD says not to do regarding PTSD. They are doing exactly backwards. That's totally, I, I've heard Haidt make that argument and I've seen him be replied to by psychologists and psychiatrists at this point. And it's a false equivalency because it's exposure therapy in a, is not, it doesn't happen in a classroom.

You know, a student being told, Hey, and by the way, if you get upset during the class, Exposure therapy happens anywhere that you feel that you're safe enough to be able to engage with the material that might be upsetting you. It happens in real life all the time. But if a student doesn't feel safe enough, then they're in a classroom. So there's clearly a big disconnection here, because if you're in the classroom, you're in a law school classroom,you are in one of the safest environments on earth.

0:45:13 Guest: The only case that can be made is inadequate preparation for the material. But if you're in a case, for instance, a classroom on criminal law, you know, this is coming at some point. If you're In a classroom in social work, at graduate school for social work. You know, This is coming. You are going to have to deal with domestic abuse. It is in it. It's like the definition of the field. So to say that it's exposure therapy being sprung on you is ingenuous or disingenuous. I'm sorry. If they're not given any, to say a student should, because the net loss here is so much greater than the net gain. I, again, the problem is you can't demonstrate that. You can say it.

0:45:54 Thomas: Let's let Eli go for a bit. I mean, honestly, James has been dominating this conversation a little bit. I want to let Eli have a chance to say what he's thinking. Well,

0:46:00 Guest: Sure. I, to me, again, what is gained by the trigger warning versus the cost. And again, there is no data on this. All we've got is anecdotal evidence. And I want to admit that straight up front versus the scorn that it receives, you know, from the anti-trigger warning community. I mean, I think we're both in agreement that we're not sure what the long-term effects of trigger warnings are. You suspect that they're negative. I'm almost certain that they are positive based on my experience. You misrepresent me just to be clear. I don't know. I'm so sorry. I thought you had said I'm pretty sure they're going to be bad or something like that.

0:46:40 Thomas: I think he did say that, actually.

0:46:41 Guest: Did I? Well, the literature indicates this and this is what I'm following. Well, I'm sorry if I misrepresent. I swear you said that, but if you didn't, I don't want to misrepresent you. So the literature, okay. So the literature indicates, uh, that it's negative. Although I got to admit that I do think that that you're talking about a culture of victimhood and not trigger warnings. Because I think all the papers that you mentioned are just saying, you know what's the problem nowadays? Trigger warnings, this, this, and when you're pointing to the issues that I completely agree with, by the way, like students who want to be social workers not wanting to engage domestic abuse. I think that's a huge problem, but it has nothing to do with a trigger warning. And I haven't heard anything except for the conversation that we just had, which is Haidt's idea that, you know, it's a goes against the idea of PTSD therapy.

0:46:42 Thomas: Yeah.

0:47:30 Guest: But again, that's not just Jonathan Haidt. That would also be Donald McNally, who is the leading PTSD researcher or one of the leading PhD researchers in the world. I've read McNally's writings on this. But, again, McNally is very clearly talking about a therapeutic environment. And just as a law classroom, if I grant you a law classroom safest environment in the world. Right. And then someone puts on saving private Ryan and my buddy, who's got terrible, terrible PTSD. And you've said, you've seen a PTSD attack when it's real, and you know, not when it's real, but you know what I mean? When, when itS a major PTSD episode, what that can be like, you Know, it doesn't matter how safe the quote-unquote safe. No, it doesn't. At that moment, it DOESN'T matter.

0:48:15 Guest: So he should have been given a trigger warning. And even though maybe, maybe again, but more importantly, scorning a trigger warning in that situation seems at the very least callous, doesn't it? I don't know whether it seems callous. It's not what I'm interested in. Again, we're talking about adults training to be professionals here. We're not talking about children. We're talking about adults training to be professionals and from the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy Institute of medicine says the exact quote, the evidence unambiguously supports that avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder. So granted, listen, listen. You're abusing the term systematic exposure. No, no, no.

0:49:00 Guest: There's two things happening here. One is either A, the student recognizes that the classroom is a relatively safe space and is able to work with it, or B, they're triggered in the relatively safe environment of a classroom and realize that their problem is sincere enough where they actually need therapy. If they're already engaged C in therapy for PTSD, if they're already going through therapy, then they're going to be able to easily obtain something like a doctor's note telling the professor and they can meet with the professor beforehand and make it very clear, hey, look, I have a medical reason that's backed by my doctor. My therapist says I need a heads up. What I'm saying is that this is a very complicated issue. And in fact, that the being triggered in the moment might actually be a net good, not a net bad, even though it sucks in that moment, because it could be the flag that tells you, you, oh my God, I have a problem I didn't realize I had.

0:49:47 Guest: And so one of the solutions is train students and professors to recognize that and direct people to the proper resources. But there's also a tremendous amount of research about how unexpected and unhealthy exposure can worsen and magnify PTSD. Yes, but one unexpected exposure is a lot different from having it again and again and if it's the thing that triggers your therapy, it is what the National Institute of Medicine says is the correct approach. It's what McNally says is the correct approach. It's what the Chronicle of Higher Education behavioral scientist Sarah Roth wrote. Treatment, not trigger warnings. It's Kathleen Smith backs this. This is one expert after another, after another. On the other hand, and I brought her up first, Kim Chambonpin brought up the opposing opinion. She thinks that trigger warnings are the correct solution, But I brought that up to point out that there's this crisis. But the problem that I have here is that the argument that you seem to be making — educate me on this, because I think I'm misunderstanding you and I apologize that you're having to explain yourself so much to me in this situation.

The argument I think you're making is, look, if they get triggered and it makes them figure out that they need therapy, it's a good thing. But we both know veterans. I'm pretty sure we both know veterans who wouldn't get therapy, who would just have a PTSD attack, who Would go through something really terrible, worsen their PTSD and not get therapy because of it.

0:51:19 Guest: Whereas a completely costless momentary trigger warning could prevent that situation from happening and actually could help someone recognize. Yeah. The point of the discussion that I've been raising, these details again and again, is that you keep saying completely costless, but it's not based in the evidence that it's completely costless. It's apparently completely costless. This is a research endeavor that is active right now. And so actually my bigger point is neither you nor I, nor any social justice activists that's working in this, except if they're on the forefront of research is qualified to answer this question.

0:51:51 Thomas: Well, if that's the case, then I really think you're trying to have it both ways when you answered that scorn might not be inappropriate. You know, like, it seems like, James, you'd have to commit then. You did. When Eli asked you, well, surely taking a scornful attitude toward trigger warnings would be inappropriate, you said, I'm not sure. Sure.

0:52:00 Guest: When the scorn, What did I say? So it's scorn might not be Okay, toward toward trigger warnings, yes, because if they are harmful, I, I, what I said, I'm not sure, um, a scornful attitude towards something that might be, be, and I'm

0:52:20 Thomas: But you're sure that Eli can't advocate trigger warnings? You know, it seems like you're having it both ways, right?

0:52:26 Guest: Sure that I, I can't, even, I'm

0:52:27 Thomas: He's

0:52:27 Guest: Trying not to have it both ways. I'm trying to say that the relevant literature points to there being a debate. That debate tends to be leaning, according to like the American Psychiatric Association and National Institute of Medicine, tends to being leaning away from trigger warnings, and that we're, we're not qualified to adjudicate on those because we're not experts in the field. And so I do think that based on what you've said, and I haven't read what you're read, so I really do want to read that. But based on what you said, I think you're really heavily conflating exposure therapy and exposure. That's what I'm hearing. What I'm saying is that with very little preparation, one can realize that a college classroom is a safe enough environment to experience something like this and then either be directed to the proper therapies or to work through some of it on your own, one or the other.

0:53:16 Guest: If the classroom is not safe enough, then you need a therapeutic environment. It's almost beyond question. But avoidance is, to the letter, the exact opposite of the recommended standard of care. Now, I understand your difference. I mean, we don't have to say it again. I understand the difference that surprise exposure is not good in the moment. And overall, it might be bad. And for people listening, the psychiatric definition of avoidance is very different than the definition, the common parlance definition. So people are hearing avoidance right now and they're like, yeah, not good to avoid that stuff. Trigger warnings are harmful, but avoidance in the psychological definition is when people don't get in cars because they've been in a car crash. People who, you know, can't see cars, people who can't, you know, avoidance in the psychological definition is a much more exaggerated form of debt of, um, avoidants, sorry to use the same word twice than a trigger warning.

0:54:10 Guest: Yes. Which is why when I'm saying the word avoidance, I'm quoting directly from the National Academies, press, National Academy of Medicine, the journal. Okay.

0:54:15 Thomas: Just clarifying for the listeners. No,

0:54:17 Guest: Okay, because this is for people listening. I'm, I'm— I'm quoting, I'm using the word in its definitional context. When I say that. Yeah, no, I'm just using it because I know that a lot of people are listening to this and they're thinking of avoidance in common parlance. And so they might conflate trigger warnings and avoidance as a behavior. And since you tried to call me on the word score and let me make it clear, I don't think you should scorn people with PTSD at all. Of course. Oh, I didn't say that.

0:54:43 Thomas: No, no. Scorning the use of trigger warnings.

0:54:44 Guest: No, no. Yeah. Yes. I just want to make that abundantly clear. Oh absolutely. Of Of course not. I don't think the the the thing is, if if those trigger warnings end up being shown net negative by the relevant literature, say, over the next 10 years of research, then scorn was actually probably somewhat appropriate for the concept of trigger warnings, not for people who say they need them, not for that experience of those people.

0:54:49 Thomas: Sure, sure. Yeah, but then by that same token, if we're going to appeal to that in 10 years, if it shows that they were useful, then Eli's attitude is totally appropriate. So I feel like we don't have a good debate here then, it sounds like.

0:55:24 Guest: Yes, of course. Right. And we don't scorn things that we don t know about, though.

0:55:27 Thomas: Yeah. And?

0:55:30 Guest: All I've done is present—my case that I've been trying to present is that we possess insufficient information, not just we, but all of us, Eli and I in particular, to make a decision on this, but that the literature leans in a particular way. James, wouldn't that be like me tweeting constantly and making jokes about a medicine that was still undergoing approval. Like if I was just like, "Oh, Kabochtetron, made for morons and only taken by idiots." Like, I agree that we don't have enough information and you've demonstrated that excellently and really, really well with really good sources that I can't wait to read. But the scorn aimed at the thing that we both agree we don't know enough about is really confusing considering how monstrous it could turn out to be.

0:56:17 Guest: You don't scorn things as default. You don't scorn things just in case. Well, like I said, again, we're dealing with a situation where a term is being used in more than one way. So when we're talking about scorning trigger warnings and you're thinking about very particular things like brutal depictions of war or brutal depinctions of rape or a beheading or a murder or something like this, we are talking about one case. And then when you see people that are putting like "trigger warning blood," "trigger warning" in the feminist literature online on blogs, you'll see something like like "trigger warning misogyny." And then it's just a guy saying some stuff that's not even remote. So I said the word misogyny is dead. That's what I'm talking about. It's like he made, you know, some kind of a comment that wasn't even a, I don't even know that it would qualify as sexist sometimes. And now it's outright misogyny.

0:57:02 Guest: Um, you see this, I do not have an example in front of me, of course, but you see kind of thing from time to time and people are going to mock that kind of things. And the whole concept is going to get mocked. This has been the crux of our conversation, James. The conversation keeps coming back to there's this very small group, and that's who I'm talking about. And each time I come back to you with the same answer, which is I know you understand that there's these larger group of people who are using that term properly, who are caused pain by being mocked, who caused pain, by the scorn, the feminists, the people who need safe spaces, the the people who need trigger warnings. We've just, we, each subject has boiled down to this idea of we all agree that there's a proper use of this terminology. We all agree that there is a vocal minority that misuses it.

0:57:49 Guest: And the fact that you're focusing on that does tremendous personal. Actually, my point with that, Eli, and nothing about personal, because this is about facts, but I'm saying my point in bringing this to those people. They're telling you that. The point that I'm trying to bring up is that the targets being chosen are the wrong ones. The people abusing the terminology, not the people reacting to the abuse terminology, not knowing necessarily too much better, are going to be the ones.

And I'm also trying to ring up the point repeatedly that we can say it's a narrow element or whatever, all we want, and maybe it is, but it's a very vocal, very, very visible one. In fact, I would go out, I would guess that if you went out and asked most people what they think safe space or trigger warning means, they mean the wrong thing as you understand it, which is an indication that that term, just like with safe spaces, Where you have people asking for entire campuses to become safe spaces has taken on a broader meaning that the people who are making the case like you are aren't recognizing. In fact, that would be the crux of my argument with you, period, is that you're not recognizing that this thing has become a monster that has taken on a life of its own and is growing and is actually a gigantic problem.

And there are documented reasons in multiple veins of literature for why this is a gigantic problem in the making. And then we're attacking the wrong target. But do you understand that what I'm making is an, so when it comes to that, the idea that that yes, there are problems at the extremes of this. What I'm talking about is the world we live in. The problems with feminists are not equal to the problems with misogyny.

0:59:34 Guest: The problems with safe spaces are not equal to the problems of transphobia and rape on campuses. When you compare the two and say that I need to be focusing and social justice proponents need to be focusing on the people misusing these terminologies, the answer is no. We need to to be focusing on the people who are committing the – who are – I'm sorry, Eli. The results coming from the Campbell and Manning paper basing off of the theory proposed and accepted, the Blacks' theory of moral sociology, indicates that the only time these kinds of concerns arise to the level that they are is when the problem is almost non-existent. The problem is therefore being exaggerated. That's what people on the other side are saying. This isn't to diminish a single person or their feelings, but that's not what people have said throughout history, James.

1:00:23 Guest: You must acknowledge that. Except that the sociological literature now indicates that this is exactly the conditions and the mechanisms are understood as to why that happens. So I just want to be clear. Is there anywhere in the sociological literature, either of the papers that you've just cited or any of the papers you've cited, that have differentiated between when people accused Jim Crow people who were civil rights proponents of victim culture, right?

They didn't use those terms, but they very clearly meant the same thing as victim culture and today. What is the difference between then and today? Actually, they illustrate how those are not victim culture. They illustrate how the phenomenon of victim culture has only arisen recently. The theory proposed by Black is that over over stratification varies inversely with stratification. If you have a highly stratified society, you will not have overstratifying behaviors occurring. So back at the time you would not have the appropriate ground for culture of victimhood, which also kind of requires things like the internet. In a highly, highly equal society, what I'm telling you is you don't have the ground. No, just bear with the papers indicate why what you're saying is not an example of what you are saying it is. Right, but if you reject the idea, just bear with me, because this is the thought pattern I'm on. If you reject

1:01:40 Thomas: Let's let this be the closing thing on this, uh, go ahead

1:01:40 Guest: ... Sure, and then we'll get to your questions or whatever. Yeah, absolutely. If You rejected the idea of victim culture, if you say, "Okay, that thing's not true," which I don't. I say that the idea victim culture is largely untrue. Then you can look at that same comparison and say, "All right, this word, victim culture, is just a new way for people in power to ascribe overly PC, uppity," you know, the term has changed throughout history. Uppity, overly PC, the rabid negro, whatever it is you want to use throughout history, victim culture is just the newest buzzword for people in power to ascribe to people who are starting to take some of that power away from them. Okay, so Eli, let me just say this because it's super relevant because I think you're thinking that this is just a buzzword because you just said it.

1:01:44 Thomas: Yeah. I don't

1:02:33 Guest: Here's the definition directly from Bradley and Manning: A culture of victimhood is one characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main form of deviance and the victimization of the way is a way of attracting sympathy. So rather than empathize either their strength or inner worth emphasize, sorry rather than emphasize their either their strengths or inner words, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization. This is the definition of fiction culture in moral sociology. Here's my question for you. How could that term not be applied if I'm a 1950s anti-civil rights crusader? How could it, that term, not be apply to civil rights?

1:03:21 Guest: Aside from the fact that we know, we're in the future now, in the words of Mike Papiglia, now, aside from the fact we know that I, an anti-civil rights, if I say that about a civil rights crusade, I can read essays where they're making all those points about civil rights crusaders.

1:03:38 Guest: Because – By the way – I mean the definition it says. It directly says what's going on here. It says that it is a culture that is overly concerned with status and sensitivity to slight. Perfect. Let me start there. So if I'm – whatever that governor was who stood in front of that, I can say, yeah, nowadays you can't even have a segregated water fountain. They think that's a slight all of a sudden. You know, it's just a different metric by which measuring what a slight is. We're talking about apples and oranges here. Having a different water fountain because you're a different color of skin versus being asked where you're from. Well, we know that now. We did not know that then. We've just moved the goalposts. You actually are saying exactly what they are saying. You are unwittingly arguing for exactly the same thing.

1:04:29 Thomas: See how that is? I'm guessing Eli doesn't I think

1:04:31 Guest: I do not. But I don't blame you. Let me find where they actually use the phrase that they actually do use the phrase moving the goalposts. Yeah. And throughout history, the goal posts have moved in the 1950s, the goal. So Eli, do you understand, you understand the statement? This is simple statement over stratification varies inversely with stratification. I totally understand what you're saying is that when there's a tremendous amount of inequality there, That the amount of slights that are tolerated are much, much larger. For instance, where are you from in the 1950s was not a problem. That's not a slight, Eli. The difference between a slight which means slight in quantity or small and an outright aggressive act is completely different.

1:05:21 Guest: Sensitivity to slights is required for victim culture. Heavy reliance on third parties is required. As we have progressed socially, the things that we bring up are smaller and smaller by definition. Just like we could point to the difference between slavery and Jim Crow laws and possibly say that Jim Crow law are much, much smaller than slavery. Now, they're still wrong, and again, we have the historical perspective to say, yes, both of those were wrong, both of those needed to be corrected. All I'm saying is the authors of this study seem to have moved the goalpost to a new location and said, this is where it needs to stop. This is social progress- No, that's not at all what the study's about. You are misunderstanding the study. They are saying that the culture moves the goal post about what constitutes deviant behavior.

1:06:10 Guest: That's the goal posts that gets moved. So the conditions previously were not sufficient to enact a victimhood culture. There was a culture with victims in it who may have used the moral currency of their victim, their victimization, but they were not a victim hood culture that was using it as its primary moral currency. They were not outsourcing their problems primarily to third parties. They were not doing this. I think where we disagree, and maybe it's because I misunderstand the paper and I'm excited to read it.

So again, it'll be in the show notes, I'm sure. And I'm excited to reading it. And get educated and come on and be like, no, James was totally right. And I was totally wrong because I might read it and be like, oh yeah, no. I now understand what James meant. I think where we disagree right now, and this may be my misunderstanding of the subject matter, is that where a culture moves those goal goalposts and decides there is offense, The authors of the study seem to have decided the goalpost have moved far enough and that the culture has moved the goalpost too far, which has created a culture of victimization. And I would say that is something that every generation has said and will continue to say. And I don't see the difference between this and previous, previous generations, except that we don't have the benefit of time and history to look back on it.

1:07:32 Thomas: We'd be cycling back at this point, I think you've you've made that point. I mean, James has made his answer

1:07:36 Guest: Yeah. All I was going to say is you just got to read the paper. Yeah, I definitely will.

1:07:37 Thomas: Yeah. We'll We'll Come back to that maybe later date. I'm curious to read it too because I I honestly, I see Eli's point and I'm not totally sure how it would be resolved except James, you insist it's resolved in the paper, so I think we'll have to just check that out. Um, So if I just want to ask a closing question, I had a lot of them, but I actually ended up getting to some of them. So if I could, if I can provide some amount of closing thoughts, it's, it's weird to me how much you guys do seem to agree, although we did find some fundamental disagreements, but you do seem a ton, and I think you two are particularly exemplary proponents of each, each side.

I think you're both very good at having the conversation and not letting things get too angry, that sort of thing, letting the animosity get too crazy. But why is it that when you guys sit here and engage, it's one thing, but then online, the interaction between the two sides is so horrible. And I want to ask, I'm going to start with Eli and then give James the final word on this, because Eli started off.

1:07:52 Guest: Yeah we'll read it.

1:08:45 Thomas: Eli, what would be your recommendation to James and or just that generic side, maybe not specifically James, but what would be your recommendation for for what people on James's side should do to reduce that animosity and to reconcile the two sides? Like, if there's one thing you want people on that side to take away from all this conversation, these hours of conversation, what would it be? And then James would be the same question. Excellent.

1:09:13 Guest: I mean, so I think it's actually twofold. I think one is not related to the other. Why it becomes so vitriolic online is that the internet has created a culture of outrage on both sides of just like instant ad hominem and attack and viciousness. And it's the Louis CK line. Like when you don't have to look at someone's face, when you're like, you know, then it doesn't matter to you. And that's why it gets so poisonous. What's interesting about this conversation, and what I would say to the other side, is James has demonstrated himself to be empathetic, sensitive, infinitely patient. I mean, James has, and I'm happy to say this, has had to educate me throughout this conversation and be like, here's a paper. Here's a piece of information. Here's this. Here's that, right?

1:09:58 Guest: He's been infinitely patient on that. And now seeing his idea, again, I disagree on where his focus is, but seeing his ideas and where some of his tweets and some of the things he said have been aimed, the only thing I would say is, James and that side, you are overestimating the intelligence of people like me when you say that we assume we know the abuse of safe space or we know it's the abuse of feminism, feminism. And so all I would say is make your allyship clear first. And then once you're firmly secured as an ally, and look, I know the left doesn't always make that easy, especially the far, far left, especially the extreme and the internet trolls. But once you've made your allysship clear, which I have, and I can speak from this from experience, your criticism gets taken with a spoonful of sugar, and it becomes much, much easier to educate.

1:10:49 Guest: And again, James's patience and James's kindness throughout this conversation and demonstration of empathy is why I was able to learn from him and hope to continue to be able to learning from him through this conversation. So again, more empathy, more whatever James said, he said more charity, more empathy, more something.

1:11:08 Thomas: So James, same question. What do you think a

1:11:11 Guest: I think Eli pretty well nailed it about why it gets so ugly on the internet. I mean, I have three rules about internet communication. This kind of shows a limit of social media interaction that I have. So my three rules are, one, never discuss religion or politics on Facebook. To, never argue on Twitter. And three, don't use Tumblr. Those are seriously my three roles of social media. I mean, if I got on other social media, I'm sure I would come up with more. And you can mull over why they are. But I think that those speak to a heart of where where internet-type conversations become broken down pretty thoroughly. And Eli spoke correctly, I think, to the motivations on that. I don't disagree with him that there's an abundance of impersonalization and uncharitable understanding and hasty assumptions about what people might mean or who's a target audience or what's going on.

1:12:05 Guest: And then I think also, to add to that, the internet puts a premium on snark, and so to come back with a witty reply and smash or destroy or salon.com uh your opponent in in one go as your first move kind of kind of gives you some kind of a social currency on the internet. And so it encourages what is literally trollish behavior, um, and that's with ignoring the actual incidence of trolls, which is a real phenomenon in its own problem, um, so that's where I would say that problem comes from. As for, I don't like this other side business, but as for people who are advocating for social justice, the one thing that I would say is that I see missing from that side of the conversation is charity.

1:12:55 Guest: There is an absolute lack of charity and assumption. There There is a jump to offense, a jump to personal insult or personal hurt that doesn't, and I don't even mean taking the time to ask somebody what they meant if you need to, but rather just this simple assumption that the majority of the people you're dealing with on the internet, especially in the kinds of moral communities that arise within atheist and secular groups of people, predominantly are not not mean spirited. They are predominantly not, uh, out to hurt people. They are predominantly thoughtful. I'm not saying that they all are. I'm saying that they predominantly are. And so charity in the sense of as an exercise, even, but this isn't something me prescribing to, hey, you other people, you need to do this, this is something I do with myself every single day, to say, when you see something questionable, to approach it with what good thing might they have have meant by that, and start there, and only when you can't come up with something that kind of makes sense do you kind of go to the, wow, that was offensive stage.

If it's, you try to work it out and it's difficult, that's a good time to ask a question. But if you say, what good thing, it's like when you try to learn how to deal with art, uh, one of the most wise things I ever learned about art was on Twitter, not in college. And somebody said, when you can counter modern art or any art and you find it confusing, the question to ask yourself is, why would that be art to someone?

1:14:31 Guest: And so in this case, the, the question's relevant to ask is, what charitable, what good thing, what noble thing might the author of that meant? As Hitchens put it, you know, the left's style has always tended, if you can identify a person's lowest possible motive, then you can become quite convinced that you found the right one, the only possible right one. And this has, and he's correct, this has the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst, at least if they publish on Salon.

So more charity, and I'm not going to say that this doesn't apply across, and I don't say both sides, so but this applies to all, on any side, on any contentious, especially moral, topic. You have to say to yourself before you become offended, this person probably didn't mean harm, and only if I can figure out that they did should I act on the fact that they were being harmful. If there's an implicit harm, then that's something that can be discussed after you try to work on that a little little bit and see what happens. So that's what I would say the the social justice activist movement, as far as I see it, is completely, completely, um, showing itself repeatedly, not you, Eli, particularly, but, uh, to be to be lacking, especially in how they behave online. Oh,

1:15:52 Thomas: Good answer. Fair enough. I think if nothing else, from 250 minutes of recording, we can all agree that Salon is a piece of shit. I think that's the number one thing yeah um but yeah thank you guys so much

1:16:01 Guest: Yeah. There we go way to make peace tune in next week for six hours of us agreeing about Reza Aslan. I mean we we could do. Oh, yeah,

1:16:09 Thomas: I think, uh, yeah I thank you all so much. This, I, I want to say, well, to close out the episode. So, really thoughtful stuff. I think there's, gosh, I could honestly do several episodes of analysis on this. I kept wanting to say stuff, and then I thought, you know what, let's just let them argue it. But I really have a lot of thoughts on this, and thank you for giving me so much to think about on both sides. And I really think this shouldn't be the end of this. I really feel like we should definitely give it some time, let it digest, let people's questions come up, you know, see what the reaction is. What do you think about maybe at a later date carrying on on a specific topic?

1:16:51 Guest: Absolutely. I mean, you know, I've I've, I think I've taken enough of James times at a certain point, I need to hire him, right? He is a professor, after all, he's done enough education. But anytime James wants to discuss, this has been an absolute delight. And I've just been I'm so glad you chose to do it. And so glad that it went as well as it did. And incredibly grateful for you putting yourself out there. I hope I earned it. Well thank you Eli certainly and yeah my rate is roughly 1.1 million dollars per hour in case you want Patreon goal Patreon goal

1:16:56 Thomas: Yeah. As I say Yeah, as soon as we get to that amount on Patreon, totally.

1:17:29 Guest: We'll put that down for patrons who contribute 1. 1 million dollars I'll talk to Eli again I'm just kidding it's 1.01 million dollars per hour come on, I mean, we're already up to like James and my exes have the same rate they

1:17:36 Thomas: Jeez, slightly Slightly less positive. Note yeah all right Thanks, you guys. Uh, it was great. I don't think I Yeah It Doesn't, yeah.

1:17:47 Guest: Say mean stuff to James or do I mean I don't care don't Do it, I'll use it against you if you do. So yeah, I know, sorry.

1:17:54 Thomas: I'm calling it here, I'm stopping the recording finally. Thank you guys again.

1:17:58 Guest: As

1:18:12 Thomas: Alright, there you have it. One more big thanks to Eli and James, so much. Thank you guys. I have a ton of thoughts. I've been asked for my thoughts several times. I appreciate that. I'm glad people care about my opinion on all this, and I was relatively quiet to allow them to debate it out because I don't think we needed another person talking in the four-hour debate that we had, but I plan to give you all my thoughts, or at least a good chunk of them, on Thursday's episode, because I have had a lot of questions, ton of comments. I can go over some of the comments to get some of the reactions back and forth either way. I think it's pretty fascinating. You will be very interested, I think, to see how listeners have reacted on either side. It's amazing how contrary the opinions can be.

1:18:58 Thomas: So I will give you all that on Thursday. Thanks again so much for listening, and I look forward to talking to you then.