[Jack_]

I can't watch the video now but the obsession with 'trigger warnings' baffles me. I really don't see what the issue is with people being informed that the content of a lecture, programme, speech, performance or otherwise may potentially be upsetting for some. My housemate for example is currently doing a unit called War and Violence, in which they're discussing such delightful topics like torture and genocide - and he's said that the lecturer has made a point of jesting that the content is naturally 'pretty heavy for a Monday afternoon' and that given some of the images and statistics that are going to be shared, if anyone wishes to leave the room at any point they're welcome to.

No one is obliged to sit, listen and watch things they may find upsetting or indeed traumatic given past experiences - especially when they are paying £9,000 a year for the privilege. I don't want to watch horror movies for example, that's my prerogative and I'm not duty bound to sit there through one, this works in the same way.

Do I think it is beneficial for people to learn things they might not wish to have known? Yes. Are they absolutely required to just because some people around the world have some absurd obsession with people not fulfilling their role as 'adults' in the 'real world' (however you even qualify these ridiculous notions). Definitely not. Once again I find it fascinating that it's usually the so-called proponents of free speech and freedom of expression who have such an issue with people doing just that.

Incidentally since TS mentioned it, no one seems to have any problems with such warnings about sensitive material in a TV show being provided before it begins, or post-show advice and helplines being offered to those affected. Where's the faux outrage and insults after nearly every episode of EastEnders?

In regards to free speech at universities - since this topic seems to be cropping up a lot on here of late, I find myself constantly conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, yes, universities of all places should be an environment where ideas are discussed and debated in a civilised and academic setting. I can however also see the opposite - which is that universities should also be institutions of tolerance, solidarity and inclusion - the one place (wah wah safe space triggered snowflake wah wah real world wah pussies) where many people who may have felt marginalised growing up feel they can express and be themselves without fear of degradation. A students' union thus shouldn't be spending its money on inviting speakers who actively deride the rights and existence of many student communities within the university.

I actually think the right answer lies somewhere in the middle. By all means stage and encourage academic debate, but the clue is in the phrase - academic. This does not equate to inviting real life troll Katie Hopkins along to spout her unfounded bile, she is not and never will be anything close to an academic. It would be akin to those on the left asking Gary Lineker to provide a counter argument. If you want an academic debate, we're talking people like Charles Murray or Imogen Tyler, not some rent a gob media *****.