"Irrational ideologies of the left"

[Phi for All]

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'.

 

I think you're choosing to frame this in the most unflattering light possible to make it sound really bad. Nobody is "protecting their sensibilities" when they want a place free from being actively maligned. You're assuming they're just being "disagreed with".

[MigL]

Just for clarification ( on my part )...

 

Say a school wanted to bring in a speaker to give a talk on a controversial subject ( fetal rights/ right to life, AGW myth/reality, Israel/Palestinian lands, etc. ), could a group protest this on the grounds that the subject violated their 'safe space' and made them feel uncomfortable ?

I suppose they could always protest; that' a constitutional right.

But would any of you agree with it ?

Does this never happen ?

Is my idea of safe spaces mistaken ?

And if not, is it stifling discussion ?

[Delta1212]

I think you might be confusing college campuses having safe spaces for students to go with college campuses being safe spaces in their entirety?

[CharonY]

Just for clarification ( on my part )...

 

Say a school wanted to bring in a speaker to give a talk on a controversial subject ( fetal rights/ right to life, AGW myth/reality, Israel/Palestinian lands, etc. ), could a group protest this on the grounds that the subject violated their 'safe space' and made them feel uncomfortable ?

I suppose they could always protest; that' a constitutional right.

But would any of you agree with it ?

Does this never happen ?

Is my idea of safe spaces mistaken ?

And if not, is it stifling discussion ?

These things happen on campus fairly. Sometimes they are invited, sometimes they preach or hand out flyers. The worst the unis I worked in have done is to e.g. send emails around that in some part of the campus there will be graphic displays from pro-lifers. An actual safe space to me is a place where rare viewpoints can be carefully addressed and not be drowned out by dominating perspectives.

[StringJunky]

These things happen on campus fairly. Sometimes they are invited, sometimes they preach or hand out flyers. The worst the unis I worked in have done is to e.g. send emails around that in some part of the campus there will be graphic displays from pro-lifers. An actual safe space to me is a place where rare viewpoints can be carefully addressed and not be drowned out by dominating perspectives.

Free speech - You can say anything you like as long as we agree with it.

Edited September 14, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Just for clarification ( on my part )...

 

Say a school wanted to bring in a speaker to give a talk on a controversial subject ( fetal rights/ right to life, AGW myth/reality, Israel/Palestinian lands, etc. ), could a group protest this on the grounds that the subject violated their 'safe space' and made them feel uncomfortable ?

I suppose they could always protest; that' a constitutional right.

But would any of you agree with it ?

Does this never happen ?

Is my idea of safe spaces mistaken ?

And if not, is it stifling discussion ?

 

It's more like what would happen here if you started a thread in Religion entitled "I need advice from fellow Catholics about Lent". I would expect any posters to respect your subject. If someone posted "I think Catholicism is wrong", I'd hide or trash that post, or at least let the poster (and the whole thread) know that's not what this discussion is about. It wouldn't be abrogating free speech, or stifling anything.

 

When I see some of the almost inhumanly sadistic responses to things people post on the web, I'm glad the idea of safe spaces to express yourself exist. Things are very different from when I was in school. I can't even imagine having someone attack my ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, or any other affiliation, aspect, or trait that had nothing to do with the subject I was expressing myself about.

[Strange]

Just for clarification ( on my part )...

 

Say a school wanted to bring in a speaker to give a talk on a controversial subject ( fetal rights/ right to life, AGW myth/reality, Israel/Palestinian lands, etc. ), could a group protest this on the grounds that the subject violated their 'safe space' and made them feel uncomfortable ?

 

I think people could protest, but they shouldn't be able to stop the speaker. People who want to hear (whether they agree or disagree) can go along and debate the issue.

 

However, if there was an area that was designated a "safe space" then that speaker should not be able to force their way into that room and give their speech there. Any more than they could insist on doing it in the library (a "quiet space") while people were trying to study.

 

I can't see the problem.

[Tampitump]

When I see some of the almost inhumanly sadistic responses to things people post on the web, I'm glad the idea of safe spaces to express yourself exist. Things are very different from when I was in school. I can't even imagine having someone attack my ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, or any other affiliation, aspect, or trait that had nothing to do with the subject I was expressing myself about.

I can definitely see the reasons and logic behind that. I don't want to see people denigrated, harassed, or made to feel like second class citizens. I guess my position is that in public places I feel the free exchange of ideas should not be limited, and safe spaces should be relegated to people's homes. I can definitely understand why some public places have certain rules to keep the peace. Like a library requiring lowered voices, a movie theater prohibiting people from shouting "FIRE", or an airline prohibiting people from mentioning the word "bomb".

 

There was a preacher at my college who set up on the court yard with a PA system calling everyone who walked by "sodomites, drunkards, sinners, and evil". Everything he said was despicable, bigoted, and he was a total piece of horse shit. He even called out this girl who walked by who had short hair (who wasn't even looking his direction) and said "what are you? A boy or a girl? God punishes faggots and lesbians! You will burn in Hell if you don't change"

 

This guy wasn't from Westboro, but he was only about a hair's breadth away from their hate speech. I wished he would just drop dead, but I still support his right to do what he was doing. He has the right to voice his opinions in public. There is nothing wrong with people being allowed to walk away and not have this guy follow them and harass them. But I think it is diffferent when you declare a piece of public land wherein this guy is not allowed to go there and publicly voice his opinion. That is the idea of a safe space I'm referring to, and I don't think my advocacy of anti-stalking, anti-harassment laws negates this position.

[Strange]

But I think it is diffferent when you declare a piece of public land wherein this guy is not allowed to go there and publicly voice his opinion.

 

 

Who says we are talking about public land?

 

And how is a room where you can't hurl abuse at people any different from a library where you have to keep quiet or a theatre where you can't yell fire?

 

Or, to put it the other way round, if people don't want to work in a noisy library, they should just go home. And if they don't want their evening's entertainment constantly disrupted by fire alarms and riots, they can just stay home.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Strange

[Tampitump]

 

 

Who says we are talking about public land?

 

And how is a room where you can't hurl abuse at people any different from a library where you have to keep quiet or a theatre where you can't yell fire?

 

Or, to put it the other way round, if people don't want to work in a noisy library, they should just go home. And if they don't want their evening's entertainment constantly disrupted by fire alarms and riots, they can just stay home.

That's a good question. On one hand, I can see where certain things that could potentially cause mass chaos and panic (like yelling fire in a theater) could and should be against the rules in certain places. I'm not sure that these things are actually "laws". I assume one is allowed to use the word "fire" in a theater if they want to, but there is a line between using it in a responsible way, and doing it to cause panic. Precipitating a riot is illegal I believe, but the words used to do it are not, themselves, illegal to say. So I get your point, my response to a college safe space would be that it is not illegal for me to speak my mind here, so don't tell me I can't do it.

[Strange]

So I get your point, my response to a college safe space would be that it is not illegal for me to speak my mind here, so don't tell me I can't do it.

 

 

It may not be illegal, but they would be entirely within their rights to throw you out for breaking their rules.

 

If you came to my house and said the things you said here, I would throw you out. It is exactly the same thing. Ditto if I owned a bar or a chess club.

 

Freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to say what you want, anywhere you want.

 

Also, because you have the right to offend people it doesn't mean you have a duty to do so.

[Delta1212]

There are plenty of things that you are not allowed to do in specific places that are also not illegal.

[Phi for All]

Is anyone really defending someone's right to walk into a group of women discussing an advanced, nuanced feminist concept and shout "Feminazis!" every time the words gender or sexuality are used? Who wants the right to do that?

 

When a member here interrupts a discussion about a specific aspect of the Global Positioning System by posting "Relativity is WRONG!", I split that post off by itself to start its own thread. Nobody should have to take the time, in that context, to switch to a Relativity 101 discussion, just because some bozo claims his voice shouldn't be silenced.

[Endy0816]

Depends public or private property. We really need some actual rulings on where and when an area can be declared a safe-space.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Endy0816

[Strange]

I assume that in the USA it could only apply to private property. Because trying to do it in public spaces would require legislation and that would be unconstitutional. (Unless the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Or the constitution was changed.)

 

In most other places, I assume it would be possible, in principle, to define a safe space anywhere.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Strange

[MigL]

OK, I see the distinction.

A safe space is an area where people are free to express their own views without ridicule/harassment.

But say you have a group of feminists discussing women's issues, and one has an opposing viewpoint, which may offend one or more of the others; are they, then, allowed to kick her out at the risk of violating her safe space ?

Am I just overthinking this ?

Is there an actual need for this ?

In the old days ( doesn't seem so long ago ) if you said something offensive to someone, even jokingly, and they told you they were offended, you would refrain from doing it again. Simply out of common curtesy.

Have we fallen so far that common curtesy now needs to be enforced or even legislated ?

[CharonY]

I do not think that that much has changed. However, we do have social media that likes to feed on outrage. During my days you could have study/discussion groups and you could get kicked out of them if you were consistently a jerk. Not much came out of that. But now everyone can twitter how ("insert group here") is violating their free speech or something.

And I think you are overthinking this. Sometimes people meet to have meaningful discussion and for sensitive topics it could be helpful to moderate (this is why this forum is not such a cesspool of ignorance as you may find elsewhere). Sometimes people start building echo chambers. As educators you try to encourage the former and challenge the latter, but some things just develop organically.

[Endy0816]

I assume that in the USA it could only apply to private property. Because trying to do it in public spaces would require legislation and that would be unconstitutional. (Unless the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Or the constitution was changed.)

 

In most other places, I assume it would be possible, in principle, to define a safe space anywhere.

 

already happened:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/theres-a-good-reason-protesters-at-the-university-of-missouri-didnt-want-the-media-around/?utm_term=.fb8653d133b8

 

I do not think that that much has changed. However, we do have social media that likes to feed on outrage. During my days you could have study/discussion groups and you could get kicked out of them if you were consistently a jerk. Not much came out of that. But now everyone can twitter how ("insert group here") is violating their free speech or something.

And I think you are overthinking this. Sometimes people meet to have meaningful discussion and for sensitive topics it could be helpful to moderate (this is why this forum is not such a cesspool of ignorance as you may find elsewhere). Sometimes people start building echo chambers. As educators you try to encourage the former and challenge the latter, but some things just develop organically.

 

I think we just need to sit down and figure out the grey areas.

 

There can be an unavailability of physical private space and in some cases legally someone can come right in for any or no reason. Mirror of the dearth of public space online.

[swansont]

OK, I see the distinction.

A safe space is an area where people are free to express their own views without ridicule/harassment.

But say you have a group of feminists discussing women's issues, and one has an opposing viewpoint, which may offend one or more of the others; are they, then, allowed to kick her out at the risk of violating her safe space ?

Am I just overthinking this ?

Is there an actual need for this ?

In the old days ( doesn't seem so long ago ) if you said something offensive to someone, even jokingly, and they told you they were offended, you would refrain from doing it again. Simply out of common curtesy.

Have we fallen so far that common curtesy now needs to be enforced or even legislated ?

 

 

 

An elderly woman was punched in the face at a Trump rally the other day for airing a remark someone found offensive. This is not really a new or isolated incident. Women are verbally abused regularly, as are LBGTQ people and people of color. Common courtesy seems a thing of the past. Now it's uncommon.

 

As far as safe spaces in public areas goes, presidents have has "first amendment" zones at rallies for some time now, with no protesters allowed in other areas. The courts have held that the government may do this — they can't regulate the content, but they can regulate the time, place and manner of the speech. The purpose is that the people who have gathered for one purpose not be interrupted and disrupted. It's basically the same concept as a safe space.

[MigL]

One more clarification, just for my peace of mind...

 

Say there is a white supremacist group, down at U. of Alabama ( say ), and they meet to discuss 'white supremacy'. Not 'lynching negroes'/burning crosses/slavery or any of the hateful part of it, but simply to discuss aspects of white superiority over blacks.

 

Do they have equal access to a 'safe space', and if not why not ?

[Strange]

Do they have equal access to a 'safe space', and if not why not ?

 

 

Do they need a safe space? Are they regularly abused (physically or verbally) just for walking down the street, sitting on a bus, etc? If so, then maybe they do. I don't know.

[CharonY]

A problem with supremacists is that almost by definition they have elements of hate speech as they define themselves by their perceived superiority (not to mention that the nation is default white).

However, if they just want to pat themselves on their back by e.g. discussing the highlights of European/US history (also known as "history" in schools) and just focus on the white majority, that is probably fine. Or if they start discussions against "PC-culture" or third-wave feminism (or whatever it is called) it is probably also fine, if they manage not to devolve into vitriol-fueled rants. It doesn't mean that people will like it, but depending on the venue they can probably easily meet up without harassment. If it occurs, they have options to complain to administration. For the most part, however, little is done to restrict discussions on campus. There have been anti-LGBT individuals who distributed flyers and engaged people in civil discussions, for example.

 

I think it is a bit of a difference if you are actually in a vulnerable group, which are potentially disadvantaged in some way (including e.g addictions, mental health issues etc.). I have a hard time seeing that to be the case for supremacists of any kind. Ironically for supremacy being part of the majority group probably works against them.

[MigL]

Someone ( the name escapes me at the moment ) once said that the metric for free speech is not consensual opinion but the most vile of opinions.

And if this is the case I can get behind 'safe spaces'.

 

Thank you all for the 'education'.

[Willie71]

Someone ( the name escapes me at the moment ) once said that the metric for free speech is not consensual opinion but the most vile of opinions.

And if this is the case I can get behind 'safe spaces'.

 

Thank you all for the 'education'.

I think it was Hitchens.

[Tampitump]

 

 

Do they need a safe space? Are they regularly abused (physically or verbally) just for walking down the street, sitting on a bus, etc? If so, then maybe they do. I don't know.

Who cares? Rosa Parks did not need a safe space. All she needed was the fortitude to tell white supremacists to fuck off and stand her ground when they tried to persecute her and others like her. Martin Luther King did not need a safe space (even in his day when African Americans were persecuted much worse than today). He used his free speech rights to rally in Washington, he put up his middle finger to the Birmingham baptists who wanted him to back down, and peacefully championed for social change. When you tell youths its okay to retreat to a safe space where no one can hurt their poor little feelings, you promote putting an end to the very thing that has consistently caused social change, and that's sticking up for your fucking self. It ends debate, wrongfully threatens free speech, and doesn't help prepare people to handle the challenges of the real world. How can social change happen for oppressed minorities when they give up and retreat to safe spaces? Colleges should be promoting the free exchange of ideas. College is where you go to have challenging new ideas introduced to you. College is not where you go to hear what you want to hear all of the time.

 

Of course, there is nuance to these social issues. I don't support harassment or actions which go beyond it. But safe spaces only seem to promote more problems for minorities in my opinion.