OK, settle down folks, it was just a joke.
But, while I am here...
Which is pretty much the definition of... wait, 'description' was never even mentioned. FOUL!
???
"Description" is what you get when you water down the meaning of "trigger warning" to the point that it's synonymous with "telling folks what's about to happen".
Words have meaning and the letter by the college doesn't represent a trigger warning.
I know conservatives can be humor impaired, so let me break down the initial joke I made, as well as the dry joke that is encapsulated by "pretty much the meaning of". First, we need to know what "trigger warning" means. Ronburgandy gets the general meaning right in the quote below, but gets one thing wrong, which I will address later in this post. A "trigger warning" is a statement issued before being exposed to words, images, or ideas, which warns of potentially stress inducing material included therein. The UofC issued a statement warning students of the University that "they can expect to be exposed to ideas that make them uncomfortable". They are not referring to physical comfort when they say "uncomfortable", but rather about mental or emotional stress. Thus they have issued a "trigger warning" that potential students of their University may encounter stress inducing words, images, or ideas if they attend the University without further warning, giving those potential students the chance they need to avoid such stress by not attending that University. It is very much a "trigger warning that there will be no trigger warnings", but the fact that I had to explain it to you now removes the humor from the statement.
On to "pretty much the meaning of" jokes. In order to slip this small amount of dry humor into a conversation, the person to whom you are responding (referred to as the 'straight man') has to use the word, or short phrase, on which you are about to base your joke. Further, its use is limited to situations where the straight man is explaining that the word, or short phrase, should not be used in a specific context, because the context involves 'X'. The person then unleashes the joke, like a carefully laid trap, ensnaring the straight man with the observation that the context explained by the straight man is pretty much the definition of 'X'. Once again, this joke is made considerably less funny by having to explain it to the humor impaired, however, it is a very dry joke, so guffaws of laughter are not expected to begin with. On the other hand, your subsequent attempt to wield this joke falls flat, because I never used the word "description", nor tried to explain that the word did not apply to the conversation because of context.
???
"Description" is what you get when you water down the meaning of "trigger warning" to the point that it's synonymous with "telling folks what's about to happen".
Words have meaning and the letter by the college doesn't represent a trigger warning.
Yeah, watering down and broadening definitions to the point where the words are meaningless is the favorite past-time of the intellectually dishonest seeking to create false equivalences.
The letter is a "warning" in the broadest sense and that is the sole similarity with "trigger warnings". It isn't a meaningful similarity since no one has ever objected to trigger warnings simply because they object to all warnings of any kind.
Trigger warnings are warnings about very specific pieces of writing/art. The UofC warning was not, but rather warned them that they would not get any specific warnings and thus they could encounter something unpleasant at any unexpected moment and that the University views this as something inherent and unavoidable to real education.
Trigger warnings are designed so that the pathetically weak of mind can retreat from the material without experiencing unpleasant thought or emotion. The UofC warning was designed to inform students they would not be able to do this and that in fact students are expected to engage in intellectual exchanges that could make them uncomfortable.
IOW, in every meaningful way and in every feature about trigger warnings that some find objectionable, the UofC warning is the exact opposite.
You were right until you drug you ideology into things with the bolded statement above. Trigger warnings are generally there to warn people who suffer from PTSD that what they are about to encounter might trigger the symptoms of their disorder. They are also often used to warn parents that they are about to encounter material that may be stressful to young children, which wouldn't actually apply in this case, but is true nonetheless. I am willing to agree, however, that sometimes trigger warnings are over used, and such over use can be detrimental to obtaining some forms of education in a University setting. This is more of an argument for applying them more cautiously, rather than an argument that they should be dispensed with altogether.
