Charles M. Blow on Donald Trump:

So, after weeks of preaching his sinister sermon of black pathology to mostly white audiences as part of his utterly fake “black outreach” — which is in fact the effort of a bigot to disguise his bigotry — Donald Trump finally brought his message before a few mostly black audiences. He spoke Friday to a handful of African-Americans in North Philadelphia, and as described on philly.com, told them that “he is not a bigot, and blamed the media for portraying him that way, according to people who attended a private event.” No sir, stop right there. We are not going to allow any deflection or redefining of words here. You are a bigot. That is not a media narrative or a fairy tale. That is an absolute truth. No one manufactured your bigotry; you manifested it.

Paul Krugman on the reporting—by his paper and others—about the Clinton Foundation:

Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate “her possible ethics challenges if elected president.” Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf.
But the prime example The A.P. actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.

The NYT has been the worst offender with this "clouds" and "shadows" bullshit—so, yeah, Krugman is slapping his own paper around. And the whole column ("Hillary Clinton Gets Gored") can be read as a subtle, not-naming-names slap at Krugman's fellow NYT opinion columnist, Frank Bruni. For a piece that names (and slams) Bruni, check out this brutal takedown by Jonathan Chait over at New York Magazine.

And Elizabeth Meadows of the Department of Psychology at Central Michigan University—"her research and clinical interests are primarily in cognitive-behavioral assessment and treatment of anxiety disorders, and in dissemination of empirically supported treatments in general and for anxiety especially"—on trigger warnings:

In another discussion on trigger warnings (a fb group for a college near mine), someone had said that people who are against trigger warnings don't take PTSD seriously enough. In response, I wrote:

FWIW, I take PTSD plenty seriously—much of my career is devoted to treating it and preventing it. I'm still generally opposed to trigger warnings as they're demanded now. Especially with the expectation that students who find something "triggering" should then get to avoid it, despite its being a part of the class they're in. I think giving people a heads-up for something they may not expect is fine, but that's different from widespread trigger warnings in general, and very different from the next step being to get some alternative to the class requirement.

In my abnormal psych class, I do mention, before the PTSD video we watch, that as they have just learned exposure therapy includes giving detailed narratives of one's trauma experience, and thus the video showing therapy for rape-related PTSD does include a detailed description of the woman's rape. I don't suggest anyone leave, but I don't forbid it either (and by then, they have also learned that avoidance is what maintains anxiety and other PTSD symptoms). OTOH, I got a comment one semester saying there should be more trigger warnings in class, for things like talking about depression, since some students are depressed and it makes them worse to be there for that. Really? It's a class on Abnormal Psychology. The scheduled topic for that day was Depressive and Bipolar Disorders, spelled out right on the syllabus. The lecture outlines are even online for anyone wanting to know what specifically is being covered. So, no, I don't think a "trigger warning" is at all reasonable in that situation, and I certainly don't think anyone who would feel "triggered" by hearing about the topics of an abnormal psych course should be able to avoid those topics even though they signed up for that course.

I think we can be kind and compassionate to students who, say, come up to us to say that x topic is difficult for them, without also saying that they should avoid that topic, not read that book, not see that video, etc. And also, there's simply no way to provide warnings of every topic that might trigger any student, and suggesting to them that they can expect that is just unrealistic IMO, even aside from its also being a bad idea."

And yes, it is true, as one of the commenters in your link mentioned, that when we do exposure therapy our clients are in charge of their own exposures. But it's also true that one enormous point we make is that we're trying to change overall from their using avoidance responses to using approach responses. And realistically, one reason people seek treatment IS that the world does not in fact stop happening just because they are having problems with what the world might present to them. It's unrealistic and also unreasonable to expect the world to conform to one's "triggers" in that way, especially since there are just so many different things one could find "triggering." So like I said, I do in fact mention that a video I'm about to show describes a rape in some detail, because that's likely not what they expect AND because I don't want that to get in the way of their being able to focus on the rest of the video wherein they learn about PTSD and its treatment. In other situations though (like some literature courses, say), it's entirely part of the point that it's unexpected. And even for the example I just gave, I certainly wouldn't tell someone it's fine to not have to know that material for class just because it's upsetting to them.

PS - Re this comment, "Assuming that exposure therapy works for everybody—or that it's therapeutic or even helpful for PTSD-havers to experience triggers in a classroom—is fundamentally unproven." - that's probably true. I'm going to guess that no one has done a study on whether facing one's triggers in a classroom is therapeutic for people with PTSD. But that's mostly because class is not actually designed to be therapeutic. That's not its reason for being. Sometimes I refer my students to therapy. Sometimes we incorporate our clients' classes into their therapy (eg, if someone with social anxiety is afraid of being called on, we may assign them to raise their hands in class during the week). But class is not therapy. And while students with problems of various sorts may get accommodations to allow them to participate fully in class, the disabilities office forms are pretty explicit in noting that accommodations do not include not actually doing the work required in the class. You don't get to skip learning about particular things if those are part of a class you signed up for.

Originally posted to Facebook, reproduced here with Meadows' permission.