Scott Alexander critiques a misreported study on trigger warnings, highlighting its flaws and limited relevance to the broader debate on their use in colleges. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study on trigger warnings that has been misreported in media. He points out several flaws in the study, including weak statistical significance, inappropriate sample demographics, and questionable measurement of harm. Scott emphasizes that the study doesn't actually measure long-term effects or real-world impacts of trigger warnings on college students. He argues that the study's findings are being overinterpreted and misused in public discourse. The post ends with Scott reiterating his own proposal for implementing trigger warnings in a low-key, matter-of-fact manner. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes mainstream media's recent focus on 'coddled' college students in social justice debates, arguing it overlooks more serious issues and reflects a bias towards elite academic perspectives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concern about the recent mainstream media criticism of social justice movements. He contrasts the issues raised by small bloggers, which focus on bullying and ideological rigidity, with those raised by major media outlets, which tend to focus on college students being 'coddled'. Alexander argues that this media focus is misplaced, overlooking more serious issues while amplifying relatively minor campus disputes. He suggests this bias stems from the media's overrepresentation of elite academic perspectives. Alexander fears that allowing this narrative to dominate could derail more substantive criticism of social justice movements, and sees it as indicative of a broader problem of academia's outsized influence on media and politics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends trigger warnings as tools for informed choice, not censorship, and criticizes arguments against them, especially those based on non-consensual exposure therapy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues in favor of trigger warnings, stating they are not censorship but rather provide information for informed choices. He suggests a compromise for implementing warnings unobtrusively, and criticizes arguments against trigger warnings based on exposure therapy, emphasizing that therapy should not be forced on people without consent. The post has an ironic tone when discussing social justice and media criticism, but becomes more serious when addressing mental health considerations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay about trigger warnings in rationalist spaces, arguing that the community's purpose is dispassionate discussion and that everyone, not just marginalized groups, has triggers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay by Apophemi about trigger warnings and discourse in the rationalist community. He argues that the rationalist community is already a 'safe space' for people who want to discuss ideas dispassionately, and that trying to make it safe for everyone would fundamentally change its nature. He shares his own experiences of being triggered by social justice rhetoric, and suggests that everyone has triggers, not just marginalized groups. Scott also discusses issues around language use, slurs, and political correctness, arguing that context and intent matter when determining what language is harmful. Shorter summary