General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow is it NOT a display of white privilege to mock the idea of "Safe Spaces"?
I'm a cis white heterosexual male. This combination of characteristics makes me LESS likely to be oppressed, slurred, denied proper reward for my efforts in life OR beaten or killed in a hate crime by than at least 85% of the human race.
I, and other people like me in those ways, have no sense(and probably can have no real sense)of what living with perpetual disparagement, contempt, and fear of a violent death at the hands of those who can't accept my very existence is like.
People like us don't NEED "safe spaces".
It's the other 85% or more who need and deserve them.
All a "safe space" is is a relatively small place(a college campus isn't that huge of an area, really)where a person can go and know that, while in that space, they are going to be free of verbal abuse, free of slurs, free of the fear of violence. It doesn't oppress anyone for that 85% to have those fairly small havens where they can let down their guard, breathe easy, be themselves, and not have to worry about what anybody else thinks of them.
In some way, in some degree, every human being deserves that. We all need a space like that if we are to be, in any real sense, free.
Straight cis white men have the entire world as that space.
Is it really that big of a deal for the 85% of the world(or more)who aren't straight cis white dudes like me to have that on a college campus?
Isn't it enough to be able to be absolutely free to be an unfiltered asshole to the majority of the human race on the OTHER 99.5% of the Earth's surface?
And would it really be so very, very terrible if the existence of "safe spaces" were to somehow lead, eventually at least, to a world in which no one was an oppressive bastard to anyone else?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TipTok
(2,474 posts)I'm sure things will get much better if they go somewhere no one will ever verbally challenge them or their ideas.
Top notch idea to turn out functioning resilient adults...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"Safe spaces" aren't usually about political or intellectual debate...they are about protecting whole groups of people from those who don't think those groups have any right to be where they are.
And is it not possible to challenge people's ideas without being abusive or bigoted?
"Safe spaces" have never prevented any progressive or positive ideas from spreading.
Tell that to the minority student journalist who was threatened with violence for daring to report on the safe space protesters in Missouri.
College is where you go to have your ideas challenged and look at things from new perspectives.
Silly concepts like this hinder young adults and reinforce victim hood instead of demanding that they be treated as equals.
What is with this push to extend childhood to the mid 20s and beyond?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That was an "authority figure loses it in the heat of the moment" issue. And that was a campus surrounded by a community of hard-line segregationists(a term that describes probably 70% of white Missouri voters), so it's not totally incomprehensible that they might feel a bit touchy and defensive. They are trapped behind enemy lines.
I assume you are a straight white male, like me. One thing that is different with us than the majority of the human race is that nobody is ever going to be debating us from a standpoint of trying to discredit our very presence on campus. You and I can't know what it's like to have people acting like we are only in college because of affirmative action, or that we should be home bearing and raising children rather than learning, or that we should stop loving the people we love and live a lie by marrying people we can't sustain a relationship with(and also make damn sure that we never hold hands in public with the person we DO love on that campus).
The romanticized notion of "ideas being challenged" that you talk about is a notion born of race and class privilege. When a white cis straight man expresses an idea and somebody challenges, that person is almost never going to face the threat of violent repression simply for expressing that idea. There is nothing a straight white man can say that can ever get him treated like Martin Luther King or Harvey Milk or Angela Davis or the early 20th century suffrage activists were treated. White male antiwar or labor or antipoverty activists are never going to be treated as harshly as women, people of color, or LGBTQ people fighting for those causes will be treated. With straight white men, ONLY the ideas are challenged. With everyone else, the PERSON is challenged and subjected to total delegitimization.
It is that imbalance that led to the "safe space" concept.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)is to self-segregate. 
The only ones who tried to have anybody removed from anywhere were the protesters. You know--the ones who got school administrators fired and kicked reporters and other students out of their safe space for the crime of not being "one of them."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/15/nobel-laureate-tim-hunt-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-i-have-been-hung-to-dry-by-academic-institutes/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html.
Absolutely backwards. SWM are the ones almost reflexively being called racist, sexist, homophobic, or misogynist when these issues come up.
No, the "safe space" concept came from people who grew up coddled and sheltered from differing opinions and found that the real world didn't work that way.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)and they're typically old white males so they push their agenda that is counter to reality. That is why college much not challenge beliefs.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Safe spaces" aren't usually about political or intellectual debate...they are about protecting whole groups of people from those who don't think those groups have any right to be where they are.
People locked away in their safe spaces are self-segregating. To solve the problem you posit (those who would make them feel unwelcome) safe spaces would be the 180 degree wrong approach. One doesn't assert a right to be anywhere by refusing to go there.
ileus
(15,396 posts)and crushing opposing ideas....not very progressive IMHO.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Almost as poor and sensitive as those staying in Women's Shelters... 
Unless of course, you carry the inaccurate bias that all safe spaces prevent or deny dialog as a standard. And if so, what objective evidence leads you to such a flawed conclusion?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)It's the mental and emotional equivalent of throwing a 135 pound wimp into the gym and expecting him to throw up 315 on the bench press but with no training, experience or base to work with.
You get there in slow steady increments with gains, setbacks and adjustments.
College is where you go to gain mental strength and resilience and you don't get there by insulating yourself from everything that makes you uncomfortable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You and I are straight white men. For people like us, fear of being silenced or worse is merely an abstraction. We can't BE persecuted by anyone.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)Response to Ken Burch (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MattBaggins
(7,897 posts)I usually only hear that saying from right wingers or the simple minded
Bonx
(2,053 posts)in a safe space !
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... And make conclusions is something that only the right leaning or 'simple' can do?
You strike me more as the type who decides what he wants the conclusion to be and then looks for evidence to support it and ignores the rest.
In any case, maybe you should get out more. It's a very common saying.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I was an out gay writer on my college newspaper in the late 70's. I pissed off a lot of conservative assholes, including the football coach and his players. They came to the newspaper office looking for me - these big tough boys wanting to scare a 5'3" woman. Since I was an editorial writer, I wasn't there...wrote my stuff (on a typewriter lol) and brought it in weekly.
Those experiences taught me a lot. I'm not easily scared. Safe spaces sound so pathetic to me.
petronius
(26,598 posts)NFL teams don't get good by just playing constant games against other teams, they spend a lot of time in training facilities, closed practices, and intra-squad scrimmages. Those are 'safe spaces,' from which they go out to compete...
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Growth and strength and resilience require pain, agility and a willingness to learn.
petronius
(26,598 posts)All of these things occur both within and outside of the safe space.
I think you missed the larger point of my analogy: the football team no more stays in training camp than the student stays in the safe space. Rather, the team practices, hones, develops its skills on the practice field (i.e., the safe space) and then tests, applies, and further refines these skills in the regular season (i.e., everywhere else).
It strikes me that many of the critiques of safe spaces rely on an unstated assumption that students will never leave their safe spaces and then be utterly confounded by the 'real world' (e.g. your teeny-tiny weight lifter). That assumption does not seem supported by any actual observation of student activism or engagement...
TipTok
(2,474 posts)That's called privacy and private property...
The problem with most of these safe spaces is the intent is to set them up in the public arena.
Within the academic framework, it's about classrooms and public common areas. In the 'real world' it's your job and general public interaction.
If you want a private space where your own ideas are reinforced and contrary input is not allowed, you can have that. We have it right here on DU btw...
The issue when those spaces where limitations are imposed on one side in order to make it easier for the other in the very spot where you are supposed to have conflict. In your analogy, the team has their own practice field but expect a safe space when they get to the regular season and complain that the other team is playing too hard and could we please put a few rocks in their pockets to even things out.
petronius
(26,598 posts)of purposes. And it's normal for those uses to have their own rules, to which participants agree to adhere to or have to leave (when the Pan-Hellenic Council reserves a room to plan for rush, the a capella group doesn't get to sit in the back and practice, for a ludicrous example). There's nothing unusual, unfair, or wrong about these arrangements in a general way.
A 'safe space' is just another use of a campus space for a group interaction where the participants agree to adhere to certain rules: Group ABC reserves Room 123 at a certain time for a meeting limited to ABC-specific content and perspectives. Nobody outside of Group ABC/Room 123 is required to carry rocks, and when Group ABC participates in the broader arena--in the campus paper, demonstrating in the quad, at the Student Council, or the Faculty Senate--they have the same experience as anyone else.
I feel like you've touched on the two primary critiques of safe spaces, self-isolation and space-occupation, and while extremes and exceptions are certainly possible I don't see the either is applicable in a general way. For the first, students at the university may isolate themselves and fail to engage, which is unfortunate, but the there are a lot of ways in which that happens and safe spaces don't really make it any more or less likely (I could even argue that safe spaces make engagement more likely, if students emerge from them with increased confidence). For the second, campus space is a resource that is in general shared and public, but available to different campus entities for their own uses. Establishing a 'safe space'--whether temporary or permanent--is just one of those varied uses...
cleveramerican
(2,895 posts)This reeks of the very same thing
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...is missing a sign.
"Smoke a bowl and chill"
Heh. Thinking is hard work, and if you encounter an idea you don't like, counter it with a better idea. Yeah, I know, that takes effort.....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)verbal abuse, putting people in fear of violence, and slurs are explicitly forbidden everywhere on campus. So, that's not really the purpose of a "safe space"
"safe spaces" usually lapse into "don't say anything I disagree with spaces"
also, there's no safe spaces outside college campuses.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All there are are the campuses themselves.
THAT is why they are needed.
Everyone should have some place where they won't have to be perpetually on guard.
Those spaces have made life bearable for LGBTQ people on college campuses in a way it never was before and in a way that would be forever lost if the spaces were abolished.
Safe spaces haven't stopped any legitimate discussions from occurring.
It's not legitimate, for example, to deny that transgender status is a thing.
And it's naive to think that the theoretical protections you list actually exist in practice. Ask any LGBTQ college student you can find if THEY trust those things to protect them.
What we need to do is to teach people to debate without personally delegitimizing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that is the definition of a private space.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When was the last time you talked to an LGBTQ college student?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In your estimation, how would a safe space function from the rest of campus?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All it really means is not being a jerk to people and not making people feel like they have no right to be there.
It doesn't have to be a prohibition of intellectual challenge. There are very few, if any intellectual arguments that can ONLY be made through the use of sweeping condemnations of entire other groups.
It's more about prohibition of the delegitimization of other people's very presence.
I truly can't see how that harms anyone.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Given that those are already the rules, what's the need for a safe space that's more restrictive?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to get those rules fully enforced.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The point is, they shouldn't HAVE to keep fighting the battles. At a certain point, at least in a few places, they should be able to count on the battles being won and staying won.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Day to day weather it be bill collectors or asshole neighbors or HOAs or jerk bosses etc etc etc life is not safe. Creating false "safe" spaces that are anything but since there is no difference from the space right next to it teaches weakness and victim hood.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)With the, I assume you meant delegitimization. That puts the freedom of speech in the hands of the poor soul needing a safe space.
Same for being a jerk.
I know these post are really clickbait and I always end up taking the bait.
I just am still shocked that serious liberals support restrictions on speech that make others uncomfortable.
So do you support spaces where ultra religious students can go and not have people talk about women's, gay or abortion rights?
Of course not. Freedom of speech is non-negotiable.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)You know it's bullshit and someone is just trying to get a rise out of you with something they know is silly/stupid and they get me every time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They would clear up a few things for you.
cali
(114,904 posts)he'd laugh at your op. He's a redneck gay guy in his mid twenties.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Sounds like he'd make great conversation. I'm glad that that person feels as safe from harm as he does.
It just strikes me that the people who mock "safe spaces" mainly want to be free to delegitimize other people's presence on a campus at all-that most of them believe only white men ever get admitted to college on the merits, that no one is oppressed, that no one lives in any real fear based on their very identity.
I can't imagine any possible progressive, humanistic argument for anything that could possibly be affected, or even any conservative argument that wasn't dependent on bigotry or delegitimization to make its case.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)is it really ridiculous for people under common threat to want to find some space where they can comfort each other and feel safe?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but declaring classrooms as safe spaces etc, nah
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The people who have been and continue to be ridiculed for wanting some safe space were absolutely terrified. They wanted to be with each other and allies and a bunch of white people turned it around made the story about their free speech.
In addition to faculty and students being called the N word, this is what they were up against:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/crime/hunter-park-who-posted-racist-threat-during-mu-unrest-gets/article_973809c7-6f10-58a5-83ce-1961008e35df.html
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)abuse recovery spaces. You don't always put victims of violence, crime or abuse right back into the same environment where the victimization occurred. Victims sometimes need to recover and build up their strength before they can expose themselves to the old environment.
Bok_Tukalo
(4,322 posts)"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities or non-religious people have often faced severely violent repression
In this day and age, a straight white Christian man is never going to be killed for expressing his views. It simply can't ever happen.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)civil society
The safe place for society in regards to those who act that way is - jail - the adult timeout that is real not just in fiction books or theory
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Texas figures
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)And the cute little stunt he uses to prove his point causes unimaginable suffering and almost a genocide. The sensitive, diverse, highly educated and scrupulously moral people wind up saving everybody.
You're not exactly making your point.
lapucelle
(18,187 posts)so I'm certainly privileged. I didn't begin to understand to what extent until my daughter gave me the essay "Upacking the Invisible Knapsack".
https://www.deanza.edu/faculty/lewisjulie/White%20Priviledge%20Unpacking%20the%20Invisible%20Knapsack.pdf
trotsky
(49,533 posts)...
This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
...
There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.
But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)
emulatorloo
(44,071 posts)Thanks for the link.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)To see the universities that sparked the Free Speech Movement turn into this is just depressing.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)
If that's what you need to feel secure... fine.
Don't expect the real world to start and stop on that basis. The rest of us will work, interact and participate in democracy whether you're here or not.
Most problematic is that the people who are most bothered by the decisions, opinions and choices that the rest of us make will won't be available to be a party to them.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts).....you're not being educated right.
The bubble wrapped children who've been shielded all their lives from negativity need to get over certain things quickly as much as the kid from small town America who never saw two gay men kiss before and is upset by it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The idea wasn't developed for wealthy white kids.
Given the physical safety issues the LGBTQ community still faces on any college campus, I'm astonished that you'd make such a reactionary-sounding post.
Debate, yes. But not delegitimization.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts).....is wealthy or even white? Now YOUR prejudices are showing.
Wow. Talk about a leap.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)
than LGBTQ people in a given area simply because there are more of them.
And straight men always have more power than everybody else because straight men have a greater capacity to band together to violently hold other people down than anyone else.
I have nothing against people from small towns per se.
The college administration could easily, during new student orientation, prepare these students for the fact that they are going to see people who are totally unlike them and that they are expected to at least be polite and respectful around them. The campus LGBTQ group could be part of the orientation process on that.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Public negotiation over what is legitimate is the core of an open idea culture.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)others by fiat they cease to be powerless and dispossessed. In fact, they become the ones with privileges no one else possesses.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I feel no anger plainly stating what is true.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I do believe it is some sort of resentment that would lead you to make such ridiculous statements.
Omg let people say no to others once and you're afraid they'll be the boss of you.
Too uppity for you, amiright? We get it.
We're supposed to let everyone trample over us. We know.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Universities are about discussing and debating ideas, even uncomfortable and offensive ones. Black people and women aren't so fucking fragile that they need to be sheltered in little bubbles, and if certain individuals are, they should have never gone to college in the first place.
If you're offended by a topic or an idea, fine, but you don't get to stop the rest of us from discussing it. This safe space nonsense is just the modern day equivalent of the medieval blasphemy and heresy accusations that stifled science and intellectualism in the West for nearly a thousand years.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I can't wait for the "I know you are but what am I?" coup de grace.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Cheap stereotypes to justify racial segregation.
You have become the monsters you have fought.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Wow.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)You added words to my post so I assume you're talking to someone else.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And also to who they serve.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....that there are many calling for them who are neither POC, LGBT, or victims of sexual abuse.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)And I'm talking about the LGBT student org office on a campus being a safe space. A place where LGBT students, for example, can go, and hang out, and be themselves and let their hair down without worrying about douchebags being dickish and bigoted to them.
But not the whole damned campus. That's stupid. A college campus is somewhere where ideas go to be challenged. Outside on the quad, free speech should be the rule.
Some of the safe-space crap I've seen is way out of control. We can't act like Trigglypuffs and expect to be treated with respect.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)That's what ideas like this get you...
A complete inability to hold a rational adult discussion because feelings.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)without using arguments along the lines of "you're only here because of affirmative action" or "why don't you just 'go straight'?" or "you're all a bunch of jihadis, you should all get sent to Gitmo"?
What arguments do you want to HAVE, exactly?
What points do you feel you can only make by doing sweeping attacks on entire racial or ethnic or religious or gender groups?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)1) It's all subjective and there is no way to establish any kind of boundary without stomping all over free speech. What you find radically offensive someone else takes as the gospel and visa versa.
2) I like when folks self identify as bigots, racists and xenophobes. Forcing them to silence just lets them fly under the radar and feel vindicated by their oppression.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's all about privilege and safe spaces and micro-aggressions and blah blah blah...
No one wants to talk about equality anymore.
Just like no one wants to talk about curing cancer...only want to talk about ways to manage it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The things you list in the first sentence are steps on the way to equality...they are about establishing equality of respect(or, as they call it in the Northern Irish peace process "parity of esteem"
.
I'm all for college as a place where ideas are challenged-but that can be done without ever using the argument that certain people shouldn't even BE at the damn college.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
... As I am to challenge them without some sort of speech police stepping in to make sure no one gets too agitated.
What you are proposing reinforces the idea that these groups aren't equal and can't hold their own with speech and ideas.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's only right-wingers and bigots who've been affected in any way at all by "safe space" rules. I can't imagine anyone making any sort of progressive point on anything being constrained in their line of argument.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)
... In a beneficial and productive way.
As opposed to what you are suggesting...
Read what you are writing FFS...
As long as you are progressive enough, the speech police shouldn't come for you. I don't demand that everyone share my views and that's what this whole movement of infantilzation is about.
I learn more from people who disagree with me than I ever do from a circle jerk of agreement.
Conformity of ideas... As long as they are the right ones as dictated by... Somebody...
Criminy...
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The world isn't a nice place and never will be. You can't be afraid to take this stuff head on. Things like safe spaces and talks about privilege doesn't create changes that lead to equality. It could actually be counter-productive and backfire. It could only further cement inequality in the minds of the social psyche.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The generation that has been raised in the age of high-speed, uncensored Internet and unparalleled connectivity to the collective knowledge of billions of human beings across millennia, choosing to willfully ignore it and actively suppress it because it hurts their feelings.
As far as the end result is concerned, no different than book burning and the purges.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Right wingers and bigots have the same 1st amendment rights as anyone else.
You are actually supporting your argument be saying only those who disagre with us will be censored.
That's some scary shit and in no way liberal.
clarice
(5,504 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)still has to include the ideas we disagree with, because it allows us to test the rigor of our ideas and rightly adjust them when the evidence convinces us otherwise.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)It necessary to explain this on a liberal website. And to think when I went to school the fight was for the right to actually speak. Now that liberals are running the show the shoe seem to be on the other foot.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's an issue with the social justice and fascism-masquerading-as-manners political correctness crowd attempting to justify their own intellectual dishonesty and--in many cases--bigotry by leeching off honorable and accomplished movements like first- and second-wave feminism, the Civil Rights Movement, and the LGBT movement.
Liberals started the Free Speech Movement in the University of California system. A bunch of talentless, perpetual-victim hacks are trying to turn universities into gigantic, expensive echo chambers.
clarice
(5,504 posts) clarice
(5,504 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)The way I read the post I responded to was that the limits of speech he proposes would only affect right wingers and bigots.
I happen to find that line of thinking kind of scary. I think the first amendment is for everyone, especially speech we find most objectionable. And I am not talking advocating violence which is already against the law.
Perhaps you read his post different than I did.
But if you have no problem with speech restrictions because they only effect those we disagree with, then I will have to politely disagree.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Issues, and cancer itself.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I bought a used mok last week and the owner's manual was missing.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As long as we're removing any sort of nuance and complex thought from discussions about language.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in a way that isn't partisan supporting one side(usually conservative) and/or supporting ones racist/bigoted ideologies.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)you will have already made up your mind.
This has nothing to do with defending bigotry and everything to do with being pissed off at a bunch of talentless hacks drumming accomplished people out of society because they did something tangentially "offensive" to someone. Land a probe on a comet? Don't care, your shirt offended someone on Twitter. Make a stupid sexist comment that someone on Twitter found offensive? Doesn't matter if you're a Nobel Prize laureate for discovering entirely new protein molecules that the offended person probably can't even pronounce, your ass is fired on the spot. Retweet a video critical of fundamentalist Islam and feminism? Doesn't matter if you're one of the most accomplished evolutionary biologists and science writers, we're throwing you out of secularist conferences.
I would have rather have a handful of people who excel in their field and actually contribute to society, albeit with an occasional character flaw, over a bunch of moronic perpetual victims whose entire existence depends on being offended.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mean, if you are going to complain about one set of people being oversensitive "perpetual victims" you should criticize another set.
Seriously, the most oversensitive twits I've ever encountered are white males, those poor, put upon victims of this society!!!! 
I say this as a white male.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in mainstream culture, they are, overwhelmingly, conservative, and generally racist.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I'm tired of outrage enthusiasts who thrive on taking recreational offense at the most trifling of matters, often on behalf of others who don't really give a shit about it anyway.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Dylan Roof.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Thanks for posting that.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)social and political change.
That Dylan Roof's terrorist act occurred in 2015, not 1963, says so much.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Is college a learning experience, or is it a gauntlet for minorities where they can "learn" to deal with oppression by experiencing it on campus in a safe controlled environment?
The rich increasingly have their own safe spaces, gated areas where they have little fear of interacting with the 99%. The same for many politicians, who rarely interact with the non-campaign contributor portion of the general public.
But if you are a straight white male:
you are not the subject of whistles and sexual suggestions,
you are not followed by the police if you are in a white neighborhood,
you are not beat up for marching in a parade,
you are not considered, nor have you ever been considered, to be 3/5ths of a person.
Agreed that 100% of the US should be a safe space from the type of ignorant, sexist, racist and homophobic language that some few persist in speaking, but until then, what is wrong with civility in specified areas?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm fascinated by how many supposedly "progressive" people feel threatened by having these things pointed out.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mine was a little more blunt.
And I am not suggesting censorship of crude speech, but the one person's right to speak crudely should not infringe on another's right to feel safe.
It is an involved issue.
anoNY42
(670 posts)I had my butt grabbed by a woman while in uniform. I was subject to "sexual suggestion".
There are white males on this list of "civil rights martyrs":
https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)for reporting that, had you chosen to do so.
anoNY42
(670 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm sorry that happened to you and hope you got counselling for it, but it's one woman being obnoxious. It's bad, but it's not oppression in the sense I was talking about.
I agree it shouldn't have happened, though.
And of course there were white people who died in the freedom struggle and they were heroes, but most of those who died and most of those who struggled were people of color-as the wives of Schwerner and Goodman pointed out at the time.
anoNY42
(670 posts)you are not the subject of whistles and sexual suggestions,
...,
you are not beat up for marching in a parade"
You were generalizing, I know.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It shouldn't happen, but it's not on the same level.
anoNY42
(670 posts)but my point on the marching was that plenty of white males were also killed or beaten for marching in the south at the time.
The grope on the butt remark was in response to your assertion that white males never face sexual harassment.
What I have learned is to never use the word "never"...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I should have added the word "generally".
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)on the assumption they're there for unlawful purposes.
Plenty of whites were abused or even killed during the civil rights and OWS protests.
The 3/5 Compromise was offered by abolitionists to keep the slave states from being over-represented in Congress by population even though slaves were obviously denied the right to representation.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)the answers I have read to this post reinforce everything you said and show the true colors of a lot of the people posting here.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This is what happens when you let people of the dominant groups decide whether or not oppression has been dealt with yet.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The fact that you come to a different conclusion than me doesn't change that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)How can any straight white man BE entitled to have it.
We are a group that can't BE persecuted or oppressed by identity.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)There are no last words.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)those who don't see won't see.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Should anyone give a damn about your assessment of their true colors?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)is making me feel like I am standing between two mirrors and can see all the way to infinity.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And then hit the real world. Then what? Are they equipt to handle adversity? That is the problem with going to college without any different points of view. And adults are not exactly nice all the time. What about the boss who expects the job done but the stress of getting it done is too much and overwhelming that they need a time out and there is none?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)The students really pushing this never intend to go into the real world. They will strive to get several advanced degrees and spend the rest of their lives living and working on college campuses.
Just like pretty much every adult I have seen advocating safe spaces work on those same college campuses.
This is not a real world issue.
I work with college interns on occasion, and there are still a whole lot of very good and independent ones at the age of 20. The majority by far. But I am shocked by how many of them, even after reaching the age of 20 or 21 still reach out for their parents to advocate for them or to help them solve their problems.
We even have parents calling the work place, asking to talk to the manager about perceived slights to their snowflakes. The most amazing thing about these rare calls is the reaction of the parents when they are told it is none of their business.
MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy
(58 posts)If that is the case, where is the adversity that monied straight white men, just as an example, are subjected to so that they may be so equipped?
It strikes me that they may be the people most in need of such equipping, since they don't tend to get it anywhere else.
Is it the purpose of higher education to train people to meet their bosses' expectations?
But mostly, when did prejudice become a "different point of view"?
I've been around for a long time—since back when "prejudice" was actually what we called the animus that some members of some privileged groups harbor toward those who are disadvantaged by circumstance ... or by that prejudice.
And we just never pretended, back then, to be so blind to it, or felt such an urge to invoke the holy freedom of speech to justify it—as if it could.
It seems to me that the problem in our times is not that the victims of prejudice have grown weak-kneed and delicate.
It is that those who choose to be prejudiced—or to benefit from the prejudice of others—have grown rebellious under the yoke of civilization, and civilization itself has become weak-kneed and has retreated from its job of restraining the barbarians.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Far too often it leads to people becoming more and more insular groupthink. People should be able to make their ideas stand or fall on their own merits without being uncivil or having to hide from having the ideas challenged.
When teachers are being asked by their students to not discuss rape in the context of domestic violence it's become a bad comedy.
No therapist worth their salt would say that if you have a phobia the best choice is to hide from it. Face things that scare you. If you feel you can't defend your ideas, how strongly do you really believe them?
The problem with the idea that what's so bad about nobody being an oppressive bastard as you put it, is who determines what is an oppressive bastard? Some people protest the use of racial slurs in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Is it oppressive to have them read the unaltered text? Is it offensive to make other students read the sanitized text? What about when comedians like Jerry Seinfeld or Chris Rock stop going to colleges because of protests? Are the students who want to see them oppressed? What happens when two Asian groups protest on opposite sides of an issue as happened at Brandeis?
The way to make a space safe is to ensure sides can disagree within largely accepted boundaries in terms of civility. The best ideas will eventually win out.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)These particularly:
Therapy represents the ultimate in safe spaces. To suggest that a patient deal with things in the open, things that might still be very painful,l is unrealistic and would probably be very counter-productive.
Again, using your words:
Who defines the accepted bounds? A rape apologist speaking to a room full of women? As happened recently at Northwestern in Chicago?
David Duke speaking to a BLM conference?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Their ideas become something like one of those odd, deep sea creatures that can only exist in an incredibly specific environment where they have zero competition. They grow more and more strange, and eventually they're so delicate they pop when faced with the slightest challenge.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)necessarily an indication of a phobia
And no decent therapist would simply tell a person "face your fear," whether they were dealing with a true phobia or another variety of fear. They would first do an assessment. Then they'd create a treatment plan based on a number of specifics of the particular person and the fear involved.
Immersion therapy, the treatment that might be described broadly as "facing your fear," is a lot more complicated than than might sound. It involves a planned, gradual, systematic, exposure to the fear in a controlled setting.
So, none of that discredits the idea of "safe spaces."
Well, that depends on the person and their ability to defend their ideas. A person may have very good ideas in which they strongly believe, but not have the personality traits or skills necessary to defend them.
Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #73)
bluedye33139 This message was self-deleted by its author.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The primaries began is disgusting. I'm not getting into how foolish it is to value "free speech" over people's safety and health. Suffice to note you don't give a fuck about the their safety or health. Not progressive.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... is a huge red flag for authoritarian madness.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Your fears are manufactured by old fantasy fiction and libertarian assholes. Ours are manufactured by our fellow citizens.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... that can be enforced by law and force.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Sometimes I wonder though...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Educate yourself as to what the rights really are before whining about losing them.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Which is why it set up a vast network of secret police and informers to tell the authorities when someone was speaking things that challenged them and made the "proletariat," for whom the authorities claimed absolute right to speak for, feel unsafe. Things like freedom -- freedom to travel, freedom from an authoritarian one-party police state, unsafe stuff like that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Stalin didn't give a crap about the workers, he was just about his own power. Class struggle had nothing to do with the repression.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Why would anyone respect a group that crumbles the instant their ideas are questioned?
ram2008
(1,238 posts)It's called reality. You are entitled to a safe environment without the constant threat of physical abuse... College campuses already provide this environment. You are not however entitled to a space where you are shielded from other people's opinions because they hurt your feelings.
I say this as a minority-- the whole safe space thing is annoying, pointless and is breeding a generation of brats. You don't like what someone is saying? Confront their stupidity, don't hide in your safe space.
Throd
(7,208 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)Safe Spaces are bullshit, and does nothing but put disadvantaged people in a difficult spot when they have to deal with real world issues and pain.
Also Iwill add this to address the OP, but away the white guilt it's embarrassing.
Old Union Guy
(738 posts)Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
bluedye33139 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)Before I explain, let me go ahead and let it be known that I very much agree that people on the margins face greater threats to their safety than most white people can ever imagine; and I know that violence against people of color, trans people etc. is a real problem that we urgently need to deal with aggressively.
But that has nothing to do with the creation of "safe spaces" on college campuses et al.
More often than not, people are running off to these places because of the WORDS of another. Rather than sticking around to confront those with whom they disagree, they flee the scene. Words cannot be allowed to wield that much power, given the fluidity of language it makes no sense. To react this way to someone's speech is a mockery of the freedom and perpetuates a regressive notion of how we should think of speech in general. I don't buy it.
And what do these safe spaces look like? At least in some cases they are like pseudo-adult play pens. The whole concept is frankly infantilizing to an embarrassing degree.
We will not be able to confront the evils that exist in the world if progressive people just start hiding in "safe spaces" whenever someone says something we don't like. It serves no long term purpose for individuals or the movement.
It's not as if those that hold disagreeable opinions are supporting any kind of violence against those that seek safe spaces away from them. Again, this is about giving words too much power.
I know the problems we face are difficult to deal with, and I know that there are many out there who disagree and hold awful/backward opinions about virtually every problem people on the margins face in the U.S. and elsewhere. But the solution cannot be to bury our heads in the sand. We can't afford a generation of minds completely deprived of oxygen.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)It's not just words. It's abuse.
People wouldn't need safe spaces if they weren't being verbally abused.
By claiming its "just words" you are giving permission for the abuse to continue.
People going to college to learn (or even going shopping) should not have to spend part of that time defending themselves from verbal attacks from strangers.
We are talking about the quality of people's lives.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)about how one of their professors at Rutgers was passing by a class of blind students and commented to their own students "There is were they keep the freaks...".
That was years ago and it still physically disgusts me.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)You have no idea who I am or how I act, and cannot infer such a thing from my post. You can keep your ill-concieved inferences to yourself. Personal attacks are what people resort to when they have nothing better to say.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Why would you ever think your simply disagreeing rises to the same level as explicit abuse?
However, I would merely suggest you take note at how offended and defensive you reacted to just words.
Now imagine going through that every day as a woman, PoC or person with a disability where those who are saying those things to you are not being misunderstood.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)I already take those experiences into account as best I can. I also know those people deserve literally safe spaces. But what is happening on college campuses these days with that term is nonsensical.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)I do not think verbal abuse is ok. There is a difference between verbal abuse and disagreement, and there is not a whole lot of evidence that what college students are facing comprises verbal abuse. It seems mostly like privileged college kids whining about someone with different views being in their proximity.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)More to the point, these are privileged kids that probably have never had their safety threatened. These safe spaces are being created, in many cases, because the students feel disagreeable about or offended by the views of someone else.
Yes, I understand that verbal abuse is a thing. And that people of color, trans people etc. actually experience this. For privileged college students to mock the safety needs of others is preposterous.
Please point me to all of these examples on college campuses that justify infantilized safe spaces.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)No matter your interpretation of what other people can and cannot endure, it really is their right to determine the standards by which they will interact with others.
For instance, as someone who has been in many workplace situations where politically right-wing individuals have entered, their politics have usually effected how they have behaved and the general quality of the environment in my experience.
So I don't think it's extreme, based on experience, to want to avoid some individuals of a particular political persuasion.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)But I reserve the right to point out how ridiculous peoples' behavior can be concerning "safe spaces" on college campuses.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)just by looking at them to judge whether they are being ridiculous or not.
To someone who has never been raped, for example, a woman crossing the street when she sees a man walking towards her on the same side, might look like she is engaging in an unwarranted action.
I find it arrogant of you, as a teacher, that you fight providing an acceptably comfortable environment to the students you then expect to sit in it. No thanks.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)I fight to create safe and nurturing spaces every day. You speak of not drawing conclusions about people for whom you do not know the background, yet you and several other posters are doing exactly that to me. I've closely followed several examples in which these "safe spaces" are completely assanine on college campuses. That does not mean that I believe in depriving anyone of the right to feel safe, whatever that looks like. You're just a self-righteous hypocrite that doesn't play by your own rules. You, and those like you, are half the reason no one wants to engage on these topics except other self-righteous liberals.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Basically, what you really are objecting to is evolution. Every older generation thinks the generations that come after them are being coddled.
What, after all, has been the history of human evolution but a decreasing tolerance for discomfort, cruelty, harshness and stupidity?
I'm certain, compared to previous generations, you yourself appear tremendously coddled, sensitive and overly politically correct. That's what comprises human progress and evolution; an increased level of sensitivity in and civilization of human culture.
These students you may consider overly-sensitive and assanine are really previous generations teachers. They are the drivers of human evolution.
So consider the possibility that you or I can't see what's intolerable about current human culture because we've had no choice but to build up a tolerance for its cruelty and ignorance compared to a young person who is seeing it with unclouded vision for the first time.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)I respectfully disagree. I'm 29 years old and was in college fighting for social justice and safety for the marginalized less than a decade ago. Also don't sell yourself short, open-minded people can bridge any cognitive generational gap. I'm not convinced that's what this is.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)That's like arguing against my preference for one chair over another. Selecting our environments is the same way. We make our personal selections based on our subjective sense of personal comfort.
One individual's personal idea of personal comfort or discomfort is just as valid as anyone else's. If we are trying to sell someone a chair and they tell you they are uncomfortable in it and want to see something else, we don't tell them they are being asinine. We try to present something that works for them.
But when you try to insist on what someone's idea of personal comfort should be, you are doomed to lose. It's an entirely subjective choice based on our personal experiences, needs and sense of comfort.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)What qualifications do you have that makes you think you can determine what setting is safe or not for someone else?
What exactly are these "asinine" examples of safe spaces that you speak of?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)how do we deem their claim to physically prohibit others is a legitimate claim?
You're talking about ceding a tremendous amount of power without examination or critique of the individual's claim. That sort of power tends to attract the worst sorts thereby inviting and guaranteeing its abuse.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and to try to find a way to associate with others like them for emotional support and affirmation in environments where they are small minorities. Your characterization of them as all being privileged infants is insulting.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)College kids mock that space. You know not of what you speak.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about protecting the powerless. Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it so difficult that people might actually want to help OTHER people get away from oppression? Life doesn't have to be about nothing but individual self-interest. and one's own allegedly tender feelings.
The ultimate need is get to a form of debate that isn't disestablishing...where ideas can be discussed without anyone's presence in the discussion or on the campus or in life being subject to debate and delegtimization.
Respect needs to come into it. And the notion of challenging the idea without attacking or trying to drive away the people with or representing the idea.
Part of the dynamic of this situation is that straight cis white men(and I say this as a member of all four of those groups)can discuss ideas between them and can challenge other people on any level, intellectual or personal, without any significant personal risk. We're we're not going to have our admission status questioned(even though there are plenty of straight white cis men enrolled in every college who clearly don't deserve to be there based on benchmark test scores), we're not going to have our residences defaced, we're not going to be driven off of a campus or assaulted for our sexual orientation or raped or lynched. For us, an exchange of ideas is nothing BUT an exchange of ideas. We have a level of safety and security in that that no one in any other group has. This is why the lofty rhetoric about "free exchange of ideas" rings hollow with anyone not in the four categories I inhabit.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)comes from a family worth tens of millions of dollars. The idea that he was being "oppressed" is laughable.
This is a concept invented by spoiled brats who judge their worth by how oppressed and victimized they are, rather than by any sort of accomplishment. If they're spoiled and middle class, they'll invent something to be victimized by.
Oneironaut
(5,486 posts)I agree with the notion that everybody should be treated with respect (within reason). We shouldn't need safe spaces for that.
In the other sense, the world is not a "safe space." I really don't like the term, because "safe space" to me means "echo chamber." It also has the connotation of physical danger - tying opinions to physical danger is in fact dangerous in its own right.
Colleges especially should be teaching people to think, justify, and debate their opinions, not to be of the opinion that anybody who disagrees with them is a bad person and/or "the enemy."
I often see Fundamentalists with the same mindset - they're right, and anybody who disagrees is an "outsider" bent on invading their safety. Anyone who doesn't obey the echo chamber must have ulterior motives or is just ignorant. Any free thought or disagreement is heavily discouraged - the group must decide for you what you think, what your talking points should be, and who the mortal enemy is. In this way, beliefs are heavily policed and enforced.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I hope people don't get the idea anyone will make a safe space after college.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)into "bigotry" because they know their flimsy, poorly-considered ideas wouldn't last five seconds on the open marketplace of ideas that is the scientific method and Western society.
Protection against violence and harassment already exist in law. If you're being stalked or threatened with violence, call the fucking cops. Universities are meant to educate students and provide them with experiences with other cultures, philosophies, backgrounds, and beliefs, some of which may be uncomfortable or even offensive to them. If you don't want to be offended, don't go to college. In fact, just stay at home and spend your life looking for information that only confirms your preconceived notions about the world rather than challenging them and developing as a human being.
"Safe spaces" don't exist to physically protect the people inside them. They exist to intellectually shield them, and that concept is absolutely cancerous to a society based on free speech, reason, and logic.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Also called the privacy of your own home, apartment or dorm room. Speech restrictions in public spaces are a violation of our most basic rights.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)But it's not only white males or white people who think the concept is sometimes taken too far. "Mocking" is another matter and a sign that you might be dealing with an asshole.
melman
(7,681 posts)you get 'em.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm not talking about bullying or harassment; but demanding ideological conformity under the guise of 'protecting' people from ideas that might upset them, is a mistake particularly in an institution devoted to learning.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Stop saying things I want to say but much more concisely. 
Dr. Strange
(25,917 posts)you wouldn't have to face Warren DeMontague's conciseness.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)seriously- having to sit there poking away with my stubby fingers does wonders for cutting down on my natural long-windedness
Skittles
(153,113 posts)LEMME AT YOU!!!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)fear my natural superiority!
Skittles
(153,113 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)even one that we might find obnoxious.
Throd
(7,208 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If "safe spaces" for these adults are so essential, shouldn't every workplace also be mandated to establish "safe spaces"?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)with concepts people are espousing here. People usually tip-toe around, for instance, strong political views. Large arguments can interfere with work, and you're not being paid to fight with your co-workers.
I suppose they could be considered safe spaces, depending on one's definition of safe space (seems like a vague term).
Renew Deal
(81,847 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Safe spaces are about defending the historically silenced and powerless.
romanic
(2,841 posts)
Hiding in an idealogical bubble won't give marginalized groups a way to defend themselves against bigots or different viewpoints; it's infantile and useless.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I assume you're far from surprised.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Those that do not need a safe space because the majority reflect who they are, do not see a need for a safe space and think that the actual discriminated persons are WEAKER than them. Sad fact is that the marginalized are much stronger, they hear what they hate to hear day in and day out. Were the shoe on the other foot and anti white bigotry had been a historical thing, they'd possibly be the first to want a safe zone. Everywhere is a safe zone for them already. They refuse to give that up, give up the power to harm, even if only in a small space.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They got theirs, and that's all that matters.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)could you pm me with the info? Thanks.
David__77
(23,334 posts)I'm gay, and I think that I've experienced individuals being hostile toward me based on their understanding of me as gay. Back in high school, this occurred on campus. I don't get what distinguishes a "safe space" from other areas that are not designated as a "safe space."
I get that groups and organizations can occupy spaces and make agreements regarding what are the social norms of within those spaces. What I don't get is if one might advocate for creating agreements/rules within a certain space that one might not apply to the world-at-large. What is the scope of "unsafe?" If this principally include slurs or threats, then I think those things should be confronted wherever they might occur. I think that those who oppose such slurs and threats can confront such wherever they might occur.
I appreciate your support of those individuals of groups that might be considered victims of oppression, including gay people.
the_sly_pig
(740 posts)I cant remember where I heard this concept. Should there be specific areas on college campuses called 'unsafe spaces'? I can't imagine a safe space for the same reason I can't imagine an unsafe space.
I believe there exists institutional bias based on race (and religion et al). Based on the original posting, the safe space is not designed to address institutional bias.
However, since individuals are able to control their feelings and perceptions, it would follow that safe spaces are impossible because other peoples feelings and perceptions cannot be controlled. Making a racial comment is an obvious example, but it is also possible that I could offend someone by asking if they like toast.
I don't oppose safe spaces, there is certainly no harm in trying, but in reality it would only take one person to ruin the attempt,
Ultimately, it is the individual that decides what is offensive. This is my opinion based on 50 years life experience.
tsp
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)They result in students leaving these universities totally unprepared for the real world because their entire lives they have been sheltered. I know, I am part of the hiring process for 4 companies that operate in my facility and see weekly the way the new kids coming out are totally unprepared to operate in the real world. I manage background checks because anyone working here must pass a serious Federal one before starting so I run a pre-screening to pull out the ones who won't pass before we send them for the Fed check.
I constantly see these young adults lie on thier forms and them when confronted with it blame us, blame the system for being unfair or too hard, blame discrimination, blame anything they can as long as they don't have to possibly take responsibility for anything they do. I've been accused of racism by people we turned down for perfectly legitimate reasons (most issues in their background that if disclosed probably wouldn't prohibit a clearance but when they lie on the forms and try to hide it that is an instant rejection) who had never even met me, so when their lawyer or the EEOC investigator met me and realized that I wasn't white and the accuser had no clue it is always kind of funny.
The companies at this point are so disgusted with the quality of young people entering the work force that for jobs requiring degrees they are now choosing to take well qualified existing employees who are proven and pay thier way through school instead of trying to hire young adults right out of school.
Plus there is the who thing that a so-called "safe space" free from any ideas or words you don't like can't exist unless it is intentionally made "unsafe" for anyone who you disagree with and then force is used to implement that to keep those ideas and voices away- the "safe space" is an artificial construct that can only exist by using violence or the threat of it to make it "unsafe" to those people, ideas and speakers you consider "dangerous".
Marr
(20,317 posts)They do seem to be awfully similar.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Jesus fucking Christ, this thread reads like reactionary Reddit shit.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)The whole concept doesn't help in any way and frankly makes the whole situation worse.
It just reinforces that some people are too delicate to be treated as equals and shouldn't be tasked with anything too taxing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)So people shouldn't have spaces where they can share their experiences without judgement, particularly judgements that are off topic?
Examples I can think of off the top of my head, discussion groups focusing on coming out of the closet for LGB folks, or transitioning to your identified gender for Transgender people, or discussing racial discrimination/harrassment with racial minorities, etc. Should people who would yell "f*g" to the LGB people or "n*gger" to the racial minorities be welcomed into these discussion groups? What purpose would that serve?
TipTok
(2,474 posts)There is no need to welcome bigots in public either. Make them look like the fools they are by pointing out the idiocy of their ideas.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)God(s) know(s) what this thread would be like on Discussionist.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
You're just saying that because most of DU thinks "safe spaces" are bullshit.
We've posted plenty of resonable responses against the idea of safe spaces, you just choose to stick to some purity test and cry about others not agreeing with what you think.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Who knows. I felt compelled to reply only because I felt this couldn't go by unanswered. Most people simply don't want to deal with the insults and bullshit from the "anti-PC" crowd. We've heard it all before. It's pretty typical for you to feel that you're the majority opinion, btw. Not surprising at all. It's a very entitled POV.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)As society becomes ever more abstract, we get more and more lost inside our own heads. The internet is the human mind on a screen. It's very easy to filter out whatever you don't agree with online. The first generation to basically grow up online is now in the college age range, give or take.
Like the internet, I think the whole safe space thing will grow, get weirder, and we'll end up more isolated.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's a space in which no filters and no human respect exist at all, in the vast majority of internet discussions.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)You can see or read anything you want to, or don't want to. Nothing like the internet has ever existed that can allow someone to "gather" with as many like minded people. You can choose to get all your news from a certain point of view. You can choose to go somewhere that has no respect, somewhere that won't challenge anything you say, or anywhere in between. All in the comfort of your own home.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)someday
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)They've got the Internet censorship thing down pretty well.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Having a space where you can exclude other people is a privilege.
If your life is like a safe space, then you've led a very sheltered life. Must be nice.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)where people are free to discuss their experiences without having outside interference from the IRL version of trolls. They mostly began, on campuses with both racial and sexual minority groups forming. You don't need a transgender discussion group to invite people with no experiences in being transgender allowing them to participate. Even more so if said participants are just going to go on and on about delegitimizing the experiences, feelings, etc. of transgender individuals.
I really don't understand the pushback against this idea, yes, there are some people abusing the terminology of "safe space" but, frankly, most of it is hyperbole from anti-PC "bigots" who hate diversity in general. Kinda like what happens to the term "feminism", being a feminist myself, I absolutely hate the right wing framing of the term, it even infests so called progressive circles.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The problem is that definition of bigotry is getting continually expanded, and when college campuses become places where "no bigotry is allowed", that means excluding more and more ideas.
"Only bigots hate PC" is basically the speech version of the fallacious "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Someone can criticize the neutering of language and the increasing risk to the free flow of information caused by people who are so easily offended, without being racists or misogynists.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Can you name one?
ONE EDIT: To qualify, what ideas that is generally agreed upon to be bigotry isn't actually bigotry?
Also, in what way has it "expanded" too far, when gender and sexual minorities are included? Different racial groups?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Apparently, asking "what are you?" in the context of inquiring into someone's cultural or ethnic background is now racist; of course, sane people know that asking somebody about their national or ethnic origin in a country born from immigrants is not, in fact, racist. According to the University of California, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" is considered a racial microaggression. Apparently, asking someone out for coffee in an elevator is sexist (thanks, Atheism+!).
At what point do we stop removing words and phrases from language? Do we just keep going every single time somebody finds a new way to be offended at a word?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)come on to at 3 am in an elevator by a stranger, and every misogynist across the planet went apeshit over it. The reaction to that bullshit was just fucking insane, and it still continues apparently. Get over it, talk about being hypersensitive.
Also, who the fuck asks "What are you?". Seriously, we aren't robots, we don't ask that question to each other, or at least I've never been asked that, but then again, I'm a white male.
Also, where is the context of the "I believe the most qualified person should get the job"? That's important. 9 times out of 10, when I hear that, its in response to affirmative action and generally insinuates that a minority is in an undeserved position.
I do find the terminology of "microaggression" to be severely misused.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)because she and a handful of other feminists were making--and frankly, in the world of FreeThoughtBlogs, still are--it seem like secularist and atheist conferences were overrun with rapists and woman-haters and started treating grown adults like children. They repeatedly imagined problems in the atheist communities where none existed and demanded every atheist either conform to their very narrow view of social justice or be threatened with being run out of the community.
I don't know, why don't you ask the person who thought it was such a common microaggression she decided to list it first in her video?
Since you already seem to think it sounds stupid and completely made-up, you may be starting to understand why people have such a big problem with political correctness.
Look, while I'm generally a supporter of affirmative action policies, there's a completely non-bigoted debate worth having over the balance between meritocracy and society's need for greater racial representation in public spheres. The problem with labeling statements critical of affirmative action as racial microaggressions is that you've now taken a legitimate debate over public policy and poisoned the well for one half of it.
The point of debate is to evaluate an argument based on that argument's merits. If someone makes an argument against affirmative action--in this instance, using the phrasing about the most qualified person should get the job--it should be absolutely irrelevant whether or not they are making that point from a place of bigotry; hell, you and I have dealt with enough anti-GMO nuts here that we both know appeal to motive is a logical fallacy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Made up problems in the Atheist community? Are you fucking kidding me? Considering the reaction that many women faced in the atheist community from(mostly) men for speaking out, it seems sexism is alive and well there. Made up problems my ass. Not to mention that there were many reforms in organizations and conferences in response to the blatant misogyny that came out of the woodwork that has improved the situation quite a bit for women, still not perfect, but its better now.
As far as the video, I agree with her, pretty much, I just would term them as racially based rudeness or insensitivity, its seems micro-aggression could be considered a more technical term to that. I have never asked someone "What are you?" or any of the other things she talked about, I was raised to NOT be an asshole. Is that really too much to ask?
Also, I did say I am a white male, under what circumstances would it be acceptable for someone to ask me what am I?
I wasn't talking about motive, I was talking about context, that's important as well. The fact is that, in most cases, affirmative action does NOT elevate unqualified people into places they don't deserve to be in, or didn't work hard to get to. Its to ensure that all the candidates are fairly considered regardless of their race or gender. The problem is that's its difficult to have a reasonable conversation or debate on this when the opposition relies exclusively on outliers, anecdotes, and false narratives to push their ideas.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The problem with labeling these as microaggressions and inextricably tying them to racism is that takes common, everyday social rudeness and places it under the same banner as when the Klan goes burning crosses and lynching. It ends up having the dual effects of diluting the term and making it easier to poison the well in arguments and avoid uncomfortable discussions.
Should you go around asking if you can touch people's hair in public? No, because it's awkward and uncomfortable. It's not racist, it's just rude.
It's something I get fairly frequently, mostly when people hear my last name. The question is typically along the lines of "what are you, exactly?" or "where are you from?" Since I get that question a lot, I know they're referring where to the family name is from, and I tell them where my grandparents are from.
Which brings me back to my point. It's ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that people would ask that question that way because they think I'm inferior to them or that I'm an object; I know they're asking about national origin and background, not whether I'm a pencil or a tire. Most people who get this kind of question are usually smart enough to figure that out, and somehow twisting it into meaning that someone's victimizing you or treating you as an inferior is exactly what I mean when I talk about people looking for new words or phrases to be offended by and consider racist.
That's not what affirmative action is. Affirmative action specifically gives higher consideration to certain groups based on their race and gender; if there were no consideration given to race or gender, it wouldn't be affirmative action. In fact, that is a very common argument against the policy, but since criticism of affirmative action is apparently considered a microaggression and therefore racist, it immediately gets discarded without consideration.
Context does matter, yes, but it's mostly useful when discrediting absurd or dog whistle ideas refuted a thousand times already. Holocaust denial comes to mind; there's no debate among historians as to the historical veracity of the Holocaust, and it's very useful to point out the connection between antisemitism and seemingly-innocent questions about its "historical accuracy", because that's almost exclusively where that question comes from.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)between blatant racism and what she calls micro-aggressions. Do you have a comprehension problem here? She actually said they aren't as bad and not on the same level as cross burnings, yet here you are claiming exactly this. But, and this is important, it can still be racism if its based on either prejudice about a race or misunderstanding/ignorance about a race. There's different levels of severity here, its called nuance.
Is this an honest misunderstanding on your part or a continuation of a narrative of your own that you keep for ideological reasons?
I'm sorry, but using the question of "what" to ask about a person is dehumanizing because the term "what" refers to things and animals most of the time. It seems the point of the video you posted completely flew over your head.
You are more verbose into what I meant by "fair" which would include taking into account historical and current discriminatory trends and weighing considerations accordingly. But, again, not sure what the argument is, the dog whistle comes in because most of the anti-affirmative action side is using dog whistles and ideas that have been refuted, time and again.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)What are you, where is your family from, they mean the same thing. Nigeria, Nigerian, same thing. China, Chinese, same thing. German, Germany, same thing. Should people ask the question in a different way? Maybe, but it's the same thing. I'm a white guy and people have asked me what I am when they hear my name.
That's society though. We're getting more and more abstract. The deeper we get into the human imagination, the more we find to be concerned about. The same way we keep finding new things that are wrong with the human body, or we find whatever it is we call nature to be that much more complex, and how every answer we ever come up with just leads to more questions.
The more individualized we get, the more we think the world needs to fit us, which goes for everyone. That's the foundation of the whole civilization project anyway. That's what we call progress. Once we figure out the what are you question, we will find something on the atom aggression level. Then on a level smaller than that.
We'll get lost in our imaginations. So it's good that the robots will be taking over all the jobs. We'll then make the virtual reality machines, and then we'll finally get to the point where nobody has to deal with anyone.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I can disagree with people, even feminists, just fine.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)There's a few things I disagree with her on, I'm sure, but I wouldn't outright deny reality like you did.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)from?" People don't seem to get that though there's nothing inherently wrong with the question itself, if (for example) an Asian person is getting asked this 10 times more often than a white person it's a problem. The underlying assumption often is, "you're obviously not American like those white people are, so what are you/where are you from?"
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...that's a safe space for the gay community. I'm fine with that.
When they try to turn an entire campus into that safe space, that's when things get stupid.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Obviously this isn't the same as making a campus physically safe for students to traverse through or live in (within dorms).
However, I also think that university campuses can serve as a filter for certain ideas, that should be introduced in context. For example, when outside speakers are invited to campus to give a speech or presentation, not necessarily a debate. A university disinviting Milo Yannofuckface from speaking because of his homophobic, transphobic, anti-humanity views seems more than appropriate, its not their responsibility to serve as a platform for his particularly idiocy. Same for holocaust deniers, other types of racists, misogynists, etc.
In the interest of open dialog, they should be invited as guests to debates hosted by said universities if they want to do so. It helps provide context and the opposing side can also have an opportunity to voice their objections to said guests directly, and might get an answer.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)"No, we can't have that unless we also have a conservative speaker there to debate and provide context and the opposing side will have a chance to voice their objections."
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or even right to exist, on campus or off.
We aren't talking about abstract policy ideas, economic theories, or anything so esoteric. For example, Milo Yannofuckface thinks lesbians don't exist and transgender people are mentally ill. These are personal attacks, that shouldn't be acceptable to give a free platform to. Can you give a single example of this on the left side?
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)but was (maybe still is, but she is rather old now) a tenured professor, with a completely solo stage.
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearheart
(on edit: I can't believe I'm having to actually defend conservatives' right to speak on campuses, but the apparent double standards seemingly advocated by some on this thread compels me to.)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)advocate for this position?
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)But if the critique of the notion is a good one, I don't give a damn.
If you have an organization and want to set it up as a safe space for certain ideas...what's stopping you? Mockery?
If your organization can't stand mockery than it deserves it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)they did not like, whether the language challenged their beliefs, to shut down debate?
Real life is messy. Building walls doesn't make you any safer.
TwilightZone
(25,428 posts)You think you can say anything you want without ramifications in real life?
You think you can say anything you want without being challenged in real life?
If so, you have a vastly different real life than the rest of us.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)f*** that noise, I will *ALWAYS* chose to fight
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 13, 2016, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)
And there is no place anywhere where people in historically oppressed groups has STOPPED fighting. Even on supposedly "safe space" campuses. I
The point is, though, that there are some things you shouldn't HAVE to fight for...you should just be able to count on those things. POC and the other groups we are discussing here SHOULD be able to count on having the same rights and same security life that straight cis white men have.
No one should have to live their lives like the smallest kid on the playground, forever battling bullies.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)OF COURSE things should be different - but they AREN'T....I take pride in fighting back - I DON'T HIDE
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The fact that they are the same makes that self-evident.
And it's not about "hiding". It's about having a few small places where you don't have to be on guard.
It's not the place of people who in any way benefit from oppression to tell the oppressed how much fighting they should have to do.
romanic
(2,841 posts)How would you know that? You said yourself that as a "cis white heterosexual male" you wouldn't know what it was like to be oppressed meaning you wouldn't know what a "safe space" would provide if you needed one.
Logic, go get some.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I believe them when they talk about what is oppressive and what they shouldn't have to constantly put up with.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Anybody can sit on thier ass and (pretend) to listen to another person's dilemma but what do you do for them?
ileus
(15,396 posts)cleveramerican
(2,895 posts)Who among us feels "safe" all the time?
The very idea a seems like fantasy to me.
Why not get ready for the real world your going to face after you graduate?
The world is full of assholes so you better get used to it
Skittles
(153,113 posts)yup
gollygee
(22,336 posts)People who are members of historically oppressed groups have to manage quite a bit of stress above and beyond what the rest of us have to deal with in order to do the same things, due to racism, homophobia, or whatever oppression they're on the receiving end of. Safe spaces give them a place to take a time-out from the stresses of their oppression.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"Social issues" maligned because they were peripheral concerns to their preferred candidate. Reminds me of all the "voting with your vagina"'posts. It's been ugly.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If some people felt that candidate didn't say enough, I accept and respect that viewpoint and everyone has the right to vote for the candidate they prefer. But it wasn't true that that candidate didn't care deeply about those issues(some of that candidate's supporters said unforgiveable things...as, to be fair, did some of the other candidate's supporters. Most supporters of both candidates were better than that, though.)
I supported that candidate, AND I support, as I always have an all-out attack on racism. As does that candidate.
Can we move past the primaries on that now?
I agree that social issues shouldn't be marginalized by anyone. It's my belief that everyone on the left essentially agrees with me on that. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot.
Social justice and economic justice are distinct, but intersect, and both need to be addressed if either is to be achieved.
It doesn't have to be either/or.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Being lesser or things to set aside. The
Positions were obviously less thought out to those who had really cared to follow the issues. It want his schtick, and there was a lot of hostility toward us who pointed it out. It was shameful.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And my belief is that it was a combination of mistakes being made(the campaign SHOULD have had its antiracist position on the website from day one, and a lot of us tried to contact them immediately because this was clearly a trainwreck about to happen) and poor communications.
There were hostile things said towards those who pointed it out(and that shouldn't have happened), but(and I don't want to turn THIS thread into another debate about the primaries...we need to get past that at some point and give people a chance for a reset and the opportunity to learn and grow)there was also the sense on the other side that, even though the campaign changed and corrected many of those mistakes, there were people acting as if nothing had changed at all. And some of it was very young people seeing a person they deeply admired, probably the first person they'd ever believed in in politics, be put under relenting attack for flaws they didn't believe he had. To some degree, a defensive response was to be expected. It was comparable, to my mind, to the reactions some had about criticism of Obama from parts of the Left.
And, most likely, there was infiltration of the social media voice of both campaigns from those who didn't actually support those candidates but just wanted to be, well, let's just say guano rearrangers. There were people who were just there to be bad actors for the sake of being bad actors. I don't think those voices represented the truth of either campaign.
My own view has always been that social justice and economic justice need to be dealt with with equal commitment, because they are distinct but intersectional, and because each conditions the other-NOT that "social justice" should be put aside for some mythical notion of the "greater good". To me, that's the view the CPUSA held in about 1936.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)See here on your thread. It's unfortunate people think college kids should be exposed to racism and other hateful attitudes to "toughen them up". Weird.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I think this goes beyond any one campaign(there were people who supported both primary candidates who had and have issues with how race, gender, sexual orientation and other forms of identity are dealt with).
And some people may see this as a way to say "I'm liberal, but I'm not THAT liberal".
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #277)
Post removed
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)If you're talking about Bernies campaign website, it was always interesting to me how his Racial Justice section of his issues page was up months before Clintons, yet he was the one who didn't the care.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You are I are in agreement, but I'm trying to heal the divisions on race(even if they were sometimes merely divisions of perception) that happened among progressives during the primary season.
In my heart, I am convinced that economic justice supporters, as a group, are staunchly antiracist and that most people who prioritize social justice also care about economic issues. The two groups were divided and some sort of working relationship has to be re-established.
beevul
(12,194 posts)So called "safe spaces" are used to censor opposing views.
Maybe not in every case, but in many cases.
In some cases, the people that run the safe space ignore their own rules, and silence others not based on what they say, but who they are and what views they hold, whether they express them or not.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No one is free to commit acts of violence, so claiming to want a safe space free from fear of violence is just plain overwrought silliness.
As for free from verbal abuse and slues: Who gets to decide? I've been accused of racism in this thread just for noting that permitting a group to unilaterally impose segregation is a form of privilege.
So now questioning the wisdom of a policy is racism which is tantamount to saying Group X is above criticism thus anything a person from that group demands must be granted without critique or hesitation.
Again: Privileges not extended to anyone else.
Finally, we must ask what enforcement would look like. What if a person not a part of the group enters the safe space and declines to leave? Will they be arrested? Forcibly removed? Including from public spaces on publically funded universities?
And then comes the matter of practicality. I have serious reservations that segregation solves anything, even if self-segregating. The situation of POC will not be improved by safe spaces any more than they will improve with separate water fountains and lunch counters.
There is no need to mock the idea of safe spaces when there is so much to sincerely criticize.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)As it's been done so far, apparently calling for "muscle" to remove people.
The way things have been going, the people outside the safe spaces are going to end up needing protection from the safespacers throwing reporters out and punching invited speakers in the face.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Is there something you aren't telling us?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Does being a member of the wrong side of the political spectrum make someone subject to physical assault with impunity or deny them their right to speak out against violence directed against them?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)and not the assault itself being used to shut down free speech.
Just so we're all clear where we stand on this.
