"Irrational ideologies of the left"

[Tampitump]

I'll never bother you guys again.

[dimreepr]

I'll never bother you guys again.

 

 

OK...

[swansont]

I'll never bother you guys again.

 

 

 

I see you are embracing the concept of safe space.

[DrmDoc]

I'll never bother you guys again.

 

Frankly, I was never bothered...but I respect your decision.

[Willie71]

I'll never bother you guys again.

That's too bad. You had an opportunity to dramatically increase your understanding here. I was looking through my book collection last night to see what I could recommend as a primer on the Middle East. I even picked a book to recommend.

[dimreepr]

I even picked a book to recommend.

 

 

Don't leave us hanging...

[MigL]

I like your answer DrmDoc...

As opposed to Swansont who thinks a 'safe space' is one free of opposing viewpoints ( and at least two others strongly agree with ).

And Willie's height of arrogance, who seems to think only others can learn from HIS viewpoint, and he learns nothing from others'.

 

AS for the BLM movement, I propose a change to EDUCATION Matters.

A willingness to get an education and stay in school, along with easier access to an education would do more for Black Americans and their 'survival' rate than BLM will ever do.

 

Come back and 'stir-up shit' anytime Tampitump.

Complacency and the status quo need to be re-thought every once in a while.

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[CharonY]

While I generally agree that being exposed to opposing viewpoints is net beneficial, one should also be aware that minority have potentially the issue that their viewpoints get drowned out. For example, if we discuss how to network our way to jobs, a black student may start asking how he/she should deal with stereotypes and potential racism. 99% of the class is not interested in that aspect and for some reasons there are always a few offended by the idea that racism matters at all. Now if one would organize a lecture surrounding this issue to address the specific issues that minorities would realistically face, would that be considered a "safe space" and would that be bad?

[MigL]

Sorry CharonY, I made an edit about BLM while you posted.

Maybe I have a different or wrong idea of what safe space is.

I assume it to be where viewpoints which may 'offend', are NOT allowed.

Edited September 13, 2016 by MigL

[Tampitump]

There are millions of legitimate safe spaces in United States worth respecting, they're called people's homes. A public safe space is a dedicated area in a public place where people can go to escape criticism, or being "triggered". Its not constitutional, its an attack on free speech, it promotes victim culture, it ends debate and conversation, and it grants more power to words than should be granted. It is an authoritarian tool of the far left, and is not supported by me.

 

I could grant that Islam is the best religion that ever existed both morally and intellectually, and my initial argument still stands. What I'm protesting is this concocted liberal notion that criticizing Islam, as opposed to other religions or ideas is somehow "Islamophobic", distasteful, and bigoted because, lets be honest, its a religion of "colored people", who are often viewed as an oppressed minority, and it kills the liberal narrative of elitist, high-brow, perceived moral-superiority to admit real problems in certain cultures and belief sets where they exist. Hillary Clinton, and others like her, show no reservation at all in calling millions of Americans bigots, and "deplorable" in the most elitist, sanctimonious way, (and lets be honest again, she's talking about mostly white, heterosexual, conservative, Christians here). It's okay to trash white, heterosexual, conservative, Christian people all you want in this country (your often considered a champion of social justice if you do), But don't you dare criticize Islam, you BIGOT. That's the liberal narrative I'm protesting. Otherwise I, myself, am on the left.

 

I don't care what section of the ethnic spectrum believes in a certain idea, I still have every right to be as ruthless and strident in my criticism of it as I do other ideologies that I despise. My criticism is not directed at brown skinned people, its the ideology of Islam. I can't help that the place where this idea is most heavily believed is in parts of the world populated by a certain ethnic group. A muslim does not equal a brown skinned, Arabic person. All I'm asking that the liberals who call out Christians for their bigotry, misogyny, and irrational beliefs extend the same standard to Islam and the level support of its more barbaric parts in the muslim world. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are at the forefront of the effort to lead reform and champion human rights in the muslim world, and we should support her over these sanctimonious liberal elitists who only take these viewpoints to flaunt their "superiority".

 

I agree that the first people to call out Islam for its atrocities are usually conservative, Christian bogots who are doing so, not to promote secularism and peace, but to promote their own ancient, religious, fairy tale bullshit. I'm just as much against them as liberals are. But we have to leave all ideas on the table to be equally ripped to utter shreds. We can't allow it to happen to some, but then shield other ones because it might be indecent to do so. No idea is sacred.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump

[DrmDoc]

AS for the BLM movement, I propose a change to EDUCATION Matters.

A willingness to get an education and stay in school, along with easier access to an education would do more for Black Americans and their 'survival' rate than BLM will ever do.

 

I don't think your proposal would address the primary cause of this movement, which is what appears to be the sanctioning of violence and oppression by officials of government authority against people of color. What you're suggesting is a separate movement, which could potentially dilute the effectiveness of the current BLM movement--in my opinion.

[Strange]

There are millions of legitimate safe spaces in United States worth respecting, they're called people's homes. A public safe space is a dedicated area in a public place where people can go to escape criticism, or being "triggered". Its not constitutional, its an attack on free speech, it promotes victim culture, it ends debate and conversation, and it grants more power to words than should be granted. It is an authoritarian tool of the far left, and is not supported by me.

 

 

So people who routinely get verbal or physical abuse on the streets should just stay at home?

 

The rest of that paragraph is so irrational, I'm not sure how to respond. How is it unconstitutional? You have already agreed that the constitution only stops the government restricting what you can say (and that there are limits to that). So if I say that "in this room, you are not allowed to abuse anyone else" then that is not unconstitutional. And if an organisation does it then it isn't unconstitutional.

 

And, as we are debating the issue here, how does it "end debate"?

 

 

 

I could grant that Islam is the best religion that ever existed both morally and intellectually, and my initial argument still stands. What I'm protesting is this concocted liberal notion that criticizing Islam, as opposed to other religions or ideas is somehow "Islamophobic", distasteful, and bigoted

 

In the thread created for this topic, when you were asked for evidence of this, you posted an example of something completely different. So either you have trouble understanding what you read or you were deliberately misrepresenting it.

 

 

 

I don't care what section of the ethnic spectrum believes in a certain idea, I still have every right to be as ruthless and strident in my criticism of it as I do other ideologies that I despise.

 

And other people have the right to disagree with you, to tell you to shut up, to throw you out.

 

 

 

All I'm asking that the liberals who call out Christians for their bigotry, misogyny, and irrational beliefs extend the same standard to Islam and the level support of its more barbaric parts in the muslim world.

 

It would be good if you could provide some statistical evidence of this sort of double standard. I am not aware of it happening, so your perception that it happens may just be an indication of your own prejudices. Or the fact I am not ware of it may be because I am a "regressive liberal". Which is why we need data.

[Tampitump]

You go right on ahead thinking of me as a bigot Strange ole buddy. I support your right to hold that opinion, and couldn't give one rat's ass less what you think. Though I don't think the subject being discussed here is one that could or would involve the type of analytical, statistical, mathematical data you're looking for.

 

I know you hate videos, and see them as a cop out, or admission of not having an argument, but..... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-oG0L6ZnU

[Strange]

Though I don't think the subject being discussed here is one that could or would involve the type of analytical, statistical, mathematical data you're looking for.

 

 

I don't see why not. You made a statement about the relative frequency with which a group says one thing versus another. That seems perfectly amenable to quantitative analysis. This sort of work is frequently done by linguists.

 

I have no idea if anyone has done the relevant research or what the results are. But then I am not making any claims about the relative numbers. You are. And, this being a science forum, it would be nice if you could provide some support. But of course, you don't have to.

 

 

 

I know you hate videos, and see them as a cop out, or admission of not having an argument

 

I just find them the worst possible way (with the possible exception of interpretative dance) to communicate information. Especially as they require me to go out of my way to make an extra effort to watch them. Drives me mad when people provide videos instead of instruction manuals.

[MigL]

That being said, you should watch this video Strange.

Its eye-opening and deals with some Canadian schools I'm familiar with.

Makes me glad I stuck to the hard sciences.

[Willie71]

Don't leave us hanging...

Easy to read, well organized, and quite insightful the only criticism is that Danahar makes little effort to hide his feelings about Bush II. While well deserved, it seemed out of sync with an otherwise really well written book.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17287002-the-new-middle-east

[swansont]

There are millions of legitimate safe spaces in United States worth respecting, they're called people's homes. A public safe space is a dedicated area in a public place where people can go to escape criticism, or being "triggered". Its not constitutional, its an attack on free speech, it promotes victim culture, it ends debate and conversation, and it grants more power to words than should be granted. It is an authoritarian tool of the far left, and is not supported by me.

 

 

 

Anti-stalking laws? They are unconstitutional? Don't all people have a right to go out into public areas without being bothered by other people? Is "shushing" me in a public library not permitted anymore?

 

Free speech means the government can't punish you for what you say. It does NOT give you the right to harass anyone, getting in their face to say what you want to say. A person absolutely has the right to end a conversation, even if you are both on public property.

[MigL]

As I said earlier, maybe I don't have a good understanding of 'safe spaces'.

( maybe Swansont can write something up like he did for Sharia )

 

I assume them to be areas where 'controversial ideas which may offend sensibilities are not to be discussed in case someone happens to overhear and is offended'.

There is no in-your-face element of harassment , or anyone actively trying to convert your way of thinking, or stalking. We already have laws for these kinds of acts.

But safe spaces are dis-allowing your so-called 'controversial' thinking or talking.

And to me it just seems like a way to stifle discussion and 'homogenize' thinking.

[dimreepr]

As I said earlier, maybe I don't have a good understanding of 'safe spaces'.

( maybe Swansont can write something up like he did for Sharia )

 

I assume them to be areas where 'controversial ideas which may offend sensibilities are not to be discussed in case someone happens to overhear and is offended'.

There is no in-your-face element of harassment , or anyone actively trying to convert your way of thinking, or stalking. We already have laws for these kinds of acts.

But safe spaces are dis-allowing your so-called 'controversial' thinking or talking.

And to me it just seems like a way to stifle discussion and 'homogenize' thinking.

 

 

Then you assume wrong, this safe space is the one where you can ignore the dissenters.

And thereby stifle discussion and promote homogenised thinking.

Edited September 14, 2016 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Please elaborate.

I don't quite get your point.

[dimreepr]

Look at the context,

 

tantitrum essentially said "well, I can't rebut your point, so I'm off..." and retreated to a place he could be correct and so prevented further discussion and stayed true to his homogenised thinking,

 

it's obvious.

[MigL]

Well every once in a while he needs a little prompting, but he's getting better.

He has some self-admitted issues to work through.

 

But what about safe spaces ?

When I was in University, there was no such thing.

The places were meant to be for the discussion of controversial subjects.

Not places where you needed coddling to 'protect your sensibilities'.

[dimreepr]

Your looking at it too literally.

[swansont]

As I said earlier, maybe I don't have a good understanding of 'safe spaces'.

( maybe Swansont can write something up like he did for Sharia )

 

I assume them to be areas where 'controversial ideas which may offend sensibilities are not to be discussed in case someone happens to overhear and is offended'.

There is no in-your-face element of harassment , or anyone actively trying to convert your way of thinking, or stalking. We already have laws for these kinds of acts.

But safe spaces are dis-allowing your so-called 'controversial' thinking or talking.

And to me it just seems like a way to stifle discussion and 'homogenize' thinking.

 

 

But as I pointed out, we already do this. If you go somewhere with a group of people, (e.g. to a bar), you generally go to a place where you feel comfortable. This is just an extension of something that already exists.

 

As I understand it, this was started by the LGBTQ community. Contrary to your observation that people do not get harassed, they often do, regardless of the law (of what use is the law if nobody enforces it?) or because the law doesn't cover the harassment (how many instances of cyber harassment have elicited a response from police that they can't do anything? Many women have documented these cases). The idea was expanded to cover a wider spectrum of marginalized people.

 

A Safe Space is a place where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age, or physical or mental ability.

 

http://safespacenetwork.tumblr.com/Safespace

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12684042/safe-spaces-college-university

 

I don't think that having a space where a woman can get away from being called e.g. a slut, or a Jewish person being called a kike, is stifling discussion. This is not protected speech, but it's also not the sort of thing that the police get involved in. And a big problem is that if you are not one of the group being harassed, you may have a hard time imagining what it's like, and downplay the effect.

 

 

An analogy might be if you traveled to an unfamiliar country for an extended period of time. Different language, different customs, etc. Being inundated by whatever culture you're immersed in can be overwhelming after a while. You bump into a stranger from your home country — what a relief! You get to talk about familiar things for a short bit, and in the language you understand! Or perhaps it's finding a restaurant with familiar food, because it's ages since you had a cheeseburger, or whatever. THAT is what you're getting from a safe space.

[Strange]

But safe spaces are dis-allowing your so-called 'controversial' thinking or talking.

And to me it just seems like a way to stifle discussion and 'homogenize' thinking.

 

I don't understand that. If one member of a group decides to go home (their "safe space", as someone suggested earlier) does that mean the rest of the group cannot continue their discussion? (Only if the purpose of the "discussion" was to attack the departed member, perhaps.)

 

So how is that any different from them going to a specific room on campus?

 

There used to be no-smoking sections on planes and trains. That didn't stop people smoking elsewhere.

 

An analogy might be if you traveled to an unfamiliar country for an extended period of time.

 

When I lived in Asia, it would be quite common to hear some white males complaining about the fact they were stared at, talked about, avoided, etc. by (some members of) the local population. They found this quite outrageous.

 

Other groups (women, people with dark skin, gays) didn't seem to complain as much, because they were used to it at home. It was normal for them.

 

Personally, I found it an eye-opening experience to be exposed to the same behaviour that black and female friends had often mentioned as part of their daily lives.