(July 1, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I mostly agree with the concept of warnings a priori because there's many people traumatized by past events and generally we, as a society, can predict some descriptions and image that can trigger someone, like warfare, rape, murder, violence, bullying, alcoholism (explicit), etc. It's for the same reason movies, videogames and TV series come with a warning when there's violence.
Post secondary education was explicitly designed for those seeking formal education about the world while bridging the divide between adolescence and adulthood while also providing specialized knowledge in fields not accommodated by secondary school in sufficient depth. Sanitizing formal instruction via the sciences and humanities designed to inform students of the world they are soon to be thrust into for the sake of a potential adverse emotional reaction does a disservice.
Where are the trigger warnings for the 20 year-olds without a degree that find themselves witnessing actual war, rape, murder, violence and explicit alcoholism? If your excuse becomes "they volunteered for the military so they should expect to be exposed to the baser parts of our reality", then I will proclaim the same for those entering university. I used the extreme example of military service, but what of a majority of kids that are dumped into the world; where are their trigger warnings? University is a place to be challenged, not coddled.
Your entertainment rating example is more of the same. These rating systems are for lazy parents that entrust strangers with deciding what content is appropriate for their children. Perhaps 30 years ago these ratings served a general purpose, but with the information on the internet today there's simply no excuse. There's another reason why the rating system is bullshit. It's easier today than it was when I was a kid to buy a PG ticket and slide into an R movie. Seriously, why is it the theater owners responsibility to watch after your kid. Entertainment rating systems are bullshit.
