"Irrational ideologies of the left"

[Arete]

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.

 

You are aware that Rosa Parks was arrested and that MLK was assassinated, right? You seem to be saying that modern minorities are weenies to not want to be pepper sprayed, shot and arrested just to be given their basic rights, which is not a particularly astute opinion.

 

Back to the original OP, there's plenty of stupid ideologies on the left side of politics - anti vax, anti GMO, support for homeopathy, etc. but I think the thread misses that point to a large degree.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Arete

[Tampitump]

 

You are aware that Rosa Parks was arrested and that MLK was assassinated, right? You seem to be saying that modern minorities are weenies to not want to be pepper sprayed, shot and arrested just to be given their basic rights, which is not a particularly astute opinion.

How the hell is this even a remotely good (or even decent) argument? They were in hostile situations wherein their lives were threatened? You think a safe space would have made that less a reality? These people may have been martyrs for their cause, but their standing up set a precedence for change to be followed by many. What precedence do safe spaces set other than dickless victim culture and no issues resolved?

 

I didn't even remotely say, or even imply, that they are weak for not wanting physical harm or persecution done to them. I'm saying that sheltering them from criticism does them no good at all Good golly.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Arete]

How the hell is this even a remotely good (or even decent) argument?

 

Given you brought both of them up, is this a rhetorical question?

[Tampitump]

 

Given you brought both of them up, is this a rhetorical question?

Still waiting on an argument.

So I suppose the concensus of this forum/community is that we should allow people to avoid hearing ideas/information they don't like on public college campuses by letting them retreat to areas (on public grounds) where they don't have to hear it? I honestly cannot believe any thinking individual who cares about truth and conversation would support the idea of a safe space. But what do I know? I'm just the volatile idiot of the forum right? I'm the unlettered bone head who never has good arguments, and never presents evidence for his claims (even when he does present evidence).

 

Skepticism and the scientific method work for investigating the natural world, but when applied to some issues, they become less about effective and careful examination of the evidence to find out what's true, and more about just downright dickless, pussy-footing, stubborn, obstinate unresponsiveness to blatant realities.

[Arete]

Still waiting on an argument.

 

 

Apologies - I thought it was obvious in the original statement. Given that Rosa Parks was arrested, and MLK was shot dead, I thought that they were given examples that their demonstrations of rights were not safe - that similar demonstrations of civil rights by contemporary civil rights activists should not come with the risk of being imprisoned or shot dead.

 

Sure, these admirable people did what they did in the face of possibly being executed and that's amazing, but we should strive for better, perhaps? and also, if you want to criticize the left for dumb ideas opposing GMO products or vaccines is a better target.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Arete

[Tampitump]

At some point, your no longer being usefully skeptical, your just being impotent and numb to reality.

[Strange]

Who cares? Rosa Parks did not need a safe space.

 

 

That seems like a red-herring. The group that was being asked about is not a minority group who are regularly abused or treated as second class citizens. Which is why I'm not sure what they would need a safe space "from".

 

Also, she chose to do what she did. Other people might have preferred to have a place where they could escape, temporarily, from the unpleasant treatment.

 

I don't think you can insist that everyone has to stand up for their rights at all times (with all the attendant risks). If I were in one of those groups, I don't know that I would be willing to be a hero or martyr.

 

 

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.

 

And I don't know that people who request safe spaces are all avoiding challenging and new ideas. Presumably, if they spent all their time in the safe space, rather than attending lectures, seminars, going to the library, etc they would have a hard time completing their course.

 

I can imagine there are people who might stand up for their rights in debates, protests and maybe even fights who would feel the need to be able to "get away from it all" for a while.

 

I struggle to see why anyone would see this as such a dangerous idea.

 

You said something along the lines of "they should just go home". But for people at university, say, that may not be practical; e.g. if their temporary home at the university is shared with people who continue the abuse, or they are not safe from abuse at their real home, etc. So this brings a space, which is like home should be, to them.

[Willie71]

How the hell is this even a remotely good (or even decent) argument? They were in hostile situations wherein their lives were threatened? You think a safe space would have made that less a reality? These people may have been martyrs for their cause, but their standing up set a precedence for change to be followed by many. What precedence do safe spaces set other than dickless victim culture and no issues resolved?

 

I didn't even remotely say, or even imply, that they are weak for not wanting physical harm or persecution done to them. I'm saying that sheltering them from criticism does them no good at all Good golly.

It's not sheltering them from criticism, it's sheltering them from violations of their rights or abuse.

 

 

I think the need for safe spaces is related to differences in culture from even a generation or two ago. We are always connected now, and cyber bullying is a very real thing. Additionally, there is a decrease in empathy amongst youth, and a significant one at that.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/

HUMANS ARE UNLIKELY to win the animal kingdom’s prize for fastest, strongest or largest, but we are world champions at understanding one another. This interpersonal prowess is fueled, at least in part, by empathy: our tendency to care about and share other people’s emotional experiences. Empathy is a cornerstone of human behavior and has long been considered innate. A forthcoming study, however, challenges this assumption by demonstrating that empathy levels have been declining over the past 30 years.

The research, led by Sara H. Konrath of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and published online in August in Personality and Social Psychology Review, found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years. To make matters worse, during this same period students’ self-reported narcissism has reached new heights, according to research by Jean M. Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University.

[MigL]

Look at it this way Tampitump...

 

If you're a young kid, who's unsure about his sexuality, and wants to discuss it with other like minded kids, do you think its appropriate to subject him to bullying/namecalling ? Requesting a safe space would allow him and the others the freedom to discuss the issues important to them without being called 'fags'. You just want to be left alone.

 

If, on the other hand, you're trying to enact social change, it does no good to start a twitter account about the treatment of young girls in Nigeria. You have to get in the face of those people and take your lumps. Similarly, if you don't agree with human rights in Saudi Arabia, it makes no sense to protest from the safety of US soil. Go to Saudi Arabia and protest their actions there. These are just examples off the top of my head, there are domestic examples I could have used ( such as BLM, but that is also under discussion in this thread )

 

That's how R. parks and M.L. King differed. they were willing to put themselves in an uncomfortable ( to say the least ) situation in an effort to enact social change.

[Tampitump]

You will never sell me on safe spaces. Not while I can still look down between my legs and see testicles hanging there. "Trigger warnings" for college assignments and study material also exist alongside safe spaces so as not to upset anyone with the content or subject matter. Its insane, and not even remotely supported by me.

 

You know, everyone on this forum is impotent in my opinion. I have consistently provided lengthy (good) reasons for my positions and have yet to have a single person even remotely attempt to concede a point, or acknowledge that they at least understand where I'm coming from on a single thing, or acknowledge that I have presented reasons for my position, or say "I understand how you arrived at that position". I've had nothing but opposition, and insistence that I haven't defended my position, which I have.

 

If people were trying to take oxygen away from universities, and I explained that you can't do that because humans would literally die from it, you guys would be sitting here saying, "well.....I'm not so sure about that, where's your evidence for this." I could sit there and explain how the brain cannot survive after six minutes without oxygen, and you'd be like "I still don't see that you've made a compelling argument for your case. Where's your evidence?"

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1&referrer=

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Arete]

You will never sell me on safe spaces. .... have yet to have a single person even remotely attempt to concede a point, or acknowledge that they at least understand where I'm coming from on a single thing, or acknowledge that I have presented reasons for my position, or say "I understand how you arrived at that position".

 

So you're stating that you approached the conversation with a closed mind, and then you complain about no one else will change theirs to agree with you. That seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

[Willie71]

You will never sell me on safe spaces. Not while I can still look down between my legs and see testicles hanging there. "Trigger warnings" for college assignments and study material also exist alongside safe spaces so as not to upset anyone with the content or subject matter. Its insane, and not even remotely supported by me.

You know, everyone on this forum is impotent in my opinion. I have consistently provided lengthy (good) reasons for my positions and have yet to have a single person even remotely attempt to concede a point, or acknowledge that they at least understand where I'm coming from on a single thing, or acknowledge that I have presented reasons for my position, or say "I understand how you arrived at that position". I've had nothing but opposition, and insistence that I haven't defended my position, which I have.

If people were trying to take oxygen away from universities, and I explained that you can't do that because humans would literally die from it, you guys would be sitting here saying, "well.....I'm not so sure about that, where's your evidence for this." I could sit there and explain how the brain cannot survive after six minutes without oxygen, and you'd be like "I still don't see that you've made a compelling argument for your case. Where's your evidence?"

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1&referrer=

I personally have acknowledged your positions several times. Presenting a right wing talking point which has logical inconsistencies will be challenged. Your understanding of what safe spaces are or why they exist is innacurate. If they were what you said they were, they would not be supported. They aren't what you believe they are, so you are being challenged.

[MigL]

Interesting article Tampitump.

 

Safe spaces are ultimately designed to fail as everyone has a dissenting opinion about something or other.

Any group will eventually reduce to one.

 

And so no one will talk to another ????

[Tampitump]

 

So you're stating that you approached the conversation with a closed mind, and then you complain about no one else will change theirs to agree with you. That seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

You're more closed-minded than me. I never said you had to agree with me, but you could at least acknowledge a point sometimes. I've done this for you people, and if you go back in this thread, you'll see where I've conceded points. You guys have yet to acknowledge that I've even made points.

 

You know what, fine. Have your safe spaces and trigger warnings instead of the free exchange of ideas. Let postmodernism and feminism impede upon academia and the natural sciences so that an unfettered study of science is no longer possible. It'll be "sexist" to study biology or sex or gender. I think professor Gad Saad's labelling of you people as the "Castrati Brigade" fits so well.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Willie71]

This is what a safe space is supposed to be:

 

educational institutions, safe-space (or safe space), safer-space, and positive space originally were terms used to indicate that a teacher, educational institution or student body does not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.[2] The term safe space has been extended to refer to a space for individuals who are marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization, typically on a university campus.[3] It has been criticized for being contrary to freedom of speech.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space

 

Tampitump, it seems you are arguing that harassment and abuse are more desired?

[Tampitump]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8

This is what a safe space is supposed to be:

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space

 

Tampitump, it seems you are arguing that harassment and abuse are more desired?

Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

[Willie71]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

"Usually practised?" How do you know this?

[swansont]

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.

 

 

What kind of tortured logic is this? You choose two exceptional people as an example of why marginalized people don't need safe spaces? That would like arguing that because Usain Bolt and a handful of others can run 100m in less than 10 seconds that nobody needs more than 10 seconds to run 100m. And it's not even that you're cherry picking instead of using an average, because the people that need the safe spaces the most are the ones who are, for whatever reason, on the other side of that particular bell curve.

 

And that's not an admission that King and Parks didn't need safe spaces. They chose to act out, but they were not activists 24/7/365.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8

Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

 

 

And you're everywhere, at all times? Because there is no way for you to actually know this, otherwise. And therein lies one of the big problems: for too many people, if they haven't witnessed or experienced the problem, they assume it doesn't exist. They live in a bubble. But that's the delusion — making unwarranted extrapolations based on one's own insular life. If you're a white male, there are some things you're just not going to get about life as a woman or with a different color of skin skin. Especially when you don't try at all to understand (and/or just ignore what those people tell you is their reality)

[dimreepr]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8

Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

 

 

It's a question of scale, and context, not delusion.

 

It ranges from, me, myself and I (isolation is the ultimate safe space) to everyone (where no-one can be safe).

 

Add to which the infinite possibilities of context and...

 

My point is, safe spaces do exist and don't exist, so until one vectors in the variables 'scale and context' one can never know if the space is safe.

[Tampitump]

 

 

What kind of tortured logic is this? You choose two exceptional people as an example of why marginalized people don't need safe spaces? That would like arguing that because Usain Bolt and a handful of others can run 100m in less than 10 seconds that nobody needs more than 10 seconds to run 100m. And it's not even that you're cherry picking instead of using an average, because the people that need the safe spaces the most are the ones who are, for whatever reason, on the other side of that particular bell curve.

 

And that's not an admission that King and Parks didn't need safe spaces. They chose to act out, but they were not activists 24/7/365.

 

 

And you're everywhere, at all times? Because there is no way for you to actually know this, otherwise. And therein lies one of the big problems: for too many people, if they haven't witnessed or experienced the problem, they assume it doesn't exist. They live in a bubble. But that's the delusion — making unwarranted extrapolations based on one's own insular life. If you're a white male, there are some things you're just not going to get about life as a woman or with a different color of skin skin. Especially when you don't try at all to understand (and/or just ignore what those people tell you is their reality)

These few people made change because they dared bear it out under hard circumstances. If they had retreated to safe spaces, white supremacy would have never ended. Change happens when you grow some fucking testicles (not that anyone in this forum knows what its like to have those), join the debate, stand your ground, and demand the respect you deserve. YOu don't win debates by cutting off someone else's free speech, and demanding to be in a place where you can't be criticized in public.There is no one on my college campus (and I've been at all parts of it at nearly every part of the day) who is oppressing minorities or seeking to oppress minorities. There aren't lynch mobs chasing people down out there. You are proposing a false dilemma. There is hardly anything in the way of violent racial turmoil going on that is anywhere near the scope and scale of the 1960s. If it is happening, its not on college campuses (I'm sure you'll ask for conclusive, statistical evidence of this). Safe spaces are purely used to shelter people form criticism and allow them to not be challenged. And lets face it, they imply a certain hostility toward people of my demographic, white, heterosexual males, who are usually viewed as the oppressors, the bigots, the "privileged". I'm the scum of the fucking earth, didn't you know? They'd probably kick me out of a safe space because I don't score high enough in the oppression olympics.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Delta1212]

Not everyone wants to spend every waking moment of their life "winning the debate."

[Strange]

If people were trying to take oxygen away from universities, and I explained that you can't do that because humans would literally die from it, you guys would be sitting here saying, ...

 

A better example would be when we used to have a small number of no-smoking carriages or seats on trains and planes.

 

By your logic, this should have been done away with and people should have just "manned-up" and put up with the smoke, smell and filth. How dare they want to get away from it for a while! (In those days, smoking was universal [maybe it still is where you are] so finding somewhere where you could get a few minutes fresh air was a relief.) Your usual "why don't they go home" argument, doesn't really work if you are travelling from A to B.

 

Now, in some countries, there are designated smoking areas/rooms for people who want to get away from the smoking ban. I assume you disapprove of those as well.

Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe.

 

I bet you fit right in ...

[Tampitump]

 

 

By your logic, this should have been done away with and people should have just "manned-up" and put up with the smoke, smell and filth.

Umm no because that has nothing to do with free speech and the free exchange of ideas or social change. There are legitimate health risks to second hand smoking. That is an act worthy controlling to some degree by not allowingnit in certain parts where others could be exposed to the chemical.

[Willie71]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

If there are exceptions and the "safe spaces" are not what they are supposed to be, such as insulating people from uncomfortable ideas, then they wouldn't be supported by me. I'm much less supportive of trigger warnings. Students should read the syllabus and have some idea what the course is about. If they need counselling for trauma, maybe they should engage that too, either before going to school, or simultaneously. Our universities offer free counselling to students.

Umm no because that has nothing to do with free speech and the free exchange of ideas or social change. There are legitimate health risks to second hand smoking. That is an act worthy controlling to some degree by not allowingnit in certain parts where others could be exposed to the chemical.

And assault/verbal abuse doesn't pose health risks?

[Tampitump]

I'm done, you just can't fix stupid. You can't give people balls who clearly have vaginas between their legs.