Trigger warnings as a concept is mainly a tool to make students aware of potentially triggering content in literature and has its origin in internet adaptions of psychological theories of posttraumatic stress disorder. The aim of this essay was to describe and analyse the argumentation in the public debate over trigger warnings in Sweden and to illustrate the fundamental questions relating to education that is highlighted by it. This was done through argumentation analysis and with theories of liberalism and identity politics as poles of a dimension of justice, illustrated by two different perspectives on disability pedagogy. The material chosen consisted of nine articles, radio programs and televised debates. The results show a clear tendency for advocates of trigger warnings to lean towards identity politics and a critical perspective on disability pedagogy in their argumentation, while the critics firmly represented a liberal, universalist perspective along with a compensatory perspective on disability pedagogy in theirs. Three fundamental questions arose in the debate: first, safety in the realm of education, meant as void of feelings of being offended, was viewed as essential by the authors who were pro trigger warnings and as a threat to the sole purpose of education by those who were against it. Second, the importance of a diagnosis for disability pedagogy, where those against stressed the importance of a diagnosis, the lack of which in combination with a request for a trigger warning was viewed as being easily offended. Advocates on the other hand were uninterested in diagnoses. Finally, the relation between free speech and democratic values in the educational system and in the society as a whole, where those authors favouring trigger warnings tended to view free speech as less fundamental than those opposed, who instead saw trigger warnings as a threat.

This thesis is born out of a desire to better understand the intentions and implications behind a contemporary planning approach we term ‘pop-up planning’. This approach can be viewed as legitimized planning institutions borrowing aesthetic and practice from citizen-led, do-it-yourself urban initiatives which act to improve public space through often tactical or temporary means. There is a blurring of the intentionality behind pop-up planning approaches, as well as contention around the actual impacts pop-up planning approaches have. We relate the ambiguity of the intentions and impacts of pop-up planning approaches to both the diversity of terminology used by different local governments, and additionally, to the dominant economic imperative which favours exchange value over use value. Therefore, through a comparative critical analysis of pop-up planning in both Vancouver, Canada and Stockholm, Sweden, we seek to explore what implications pop-up planning has relating to democracy and social justice, and to uncover what impacts and intentionalities lay behind these approaches. / Den här uppsatsen bygger på viljan att bättre förstå intentionerna och följderna av en samtida planeringsapproach vi kallar pop-up planering. Detta tillvägagångssätt kan förklaras som att legitimerade planeringsinstitutioner lånar estetik och praktik från medborgarledda gör-det-själv-initiativ som verkar för att förbättra det offentliga rummet, ofta genom taktiska eller tillfälliga medel. Lokala myndigheter använder en mångfald av termer och begrepp relaterat till pop-up planering. Detta tillsammans med det dominerande ekonomiska imperativet, som gynnar bytesvärde framför brukarvärde, tenderar att grumla de bakomliggande avsikterna och de verkliga effekterna av denna planeringsapproach. Genom en jämförande kritisk analys av pop-up planering i både Vancouver, Kanada och Stockholm, Sverige, söker vi finna vilka konsekvenser pop-up planering har för demokrati och social rättvisa, samt att påvisa vilka effekter och avsikter som ligger bakom detta tillvägagångssätt inom planering.