"Irrational ideologies of the left"

[Tampitump]

You are proposing a straw man, with more straw than I thought possible. Who the hell said anything about lynch mobs?

 

 

More straw. Do you buy by the ton? I hope you get it wholesale.

These statements were in response to the guy who said "you do know that Rosa Parks and MLK were arrested and assassinated respectively, right?". The person went to ask if I was advocating that people do not have the right to avoid assault, harassment, or stalking. THIS, my friend (as well as your entire post here) are straw men. I pointed out that no one is running from lynch mobs, or being physically abused on college campuses, at least not to the scope and scale of the 1960s south. I;m not saying it DOESN'T happen. I'm saying that it is much more likely that these safe spaces are being utilized by sensitive people who don't want their feelings hurt in the other free-speech areas around campus. My response was a perfectly relevant response to his idiotic question. I'm saying that these people utilizing safe spaces on college campuses are not running from lynch mobs or assault. If they were, I'd know about it because it would be in the news, and safe spaces wouldn't help these things one fucking bit. I did not propose the topic of assault and violence, whoever made this argument did. I was merely reacting to it.

 

I know I know... I cannot possibly be right about anything I've said. I've proven to be a volatile goof ball who swears and doesn't make good arguments. I'm always wrong. I get it. You guys are the intellectually-superior men of science who always have the best arguments and positions, and there is not even one small fraction of my position that can be agreed with or acknowledged to make even a small modicum of sense. I'm wrong across the board, and without exception. I get it. I'm aware. Thanks.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Delta1212]

Boiled down to its essentials, that line of argument went:

 

A: "Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King didn't need safe spaces."

 

B: "Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King had violence visited upon them, so perhaps they could have used a safe space."

 

A: "College students are probably using safe spaces for reasons other than avoiding physical violence, therefore if Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks needed a safe space, these people don't."

 

 

That can be boiled down to a logical argument of the form:

 

If someone experiences violence then they need a safe space.

 

Therefore, if someone does not experience physical violence, they do not need a safe space.

 

That's a a fairly standard logical fallacy that you have made. You are reacting emotionally to counterpoints and getting frustrated by what seems to be a lack of responsiveness to your own points, but part of that is because you are missing some logical disconnects in your thinking and misinterpreting the flow of the argument as a result.

[Tampitump]

A: "College students are probably using safe spaces for reasons other than avoiding physical violence, therefore if Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks needed a safe space, these people don't."

Wrong, this was not my argument. Not even remotely. You got it completely, miserably wrong. Sorry. You're just wrong about my argument. You're not even on the right track. So let me clear it up:

 

What I said was...............MLK and Rosa Parks didn't need safe spaces because they believed in standing up for themselves, which resulted in massive movements that made REAL social change. Playing the victim and being coddled does nothing to help you or prepare you to stand your ground, and it does nothing to end the hateful things people are saying, or the racial violence or oppression that is happening. All it does is allow you a special right to not be exposed to reality. Maybe if minorities were encouraged to stand their ground with their oppressors, perhaps social change for them could happen for them much sooner. Retreating to a safe spaces does little but make you weaker and less likely to survive in the real world.

[Delta1212]

So, just to be clear, you're against safe spaces but support Black Lives Matter?

[Tampitump]

So, just to be clear, you're against safe spaces but support Black Lives Matter?

No, that's not it at all. I don't know why you guys can accuse me of binary thinking and straw men when you post things like this towards me. Standing your ground does not mean you're right. BLM could give equal attention to criticizing the inner workings of the African American community, including the staggering numbers of black on black crime that happen in much higher amounts than police brutality, but they don't. There could be reformists (and there are) granting equal criticisms to the community itself whilst fighting bigotry and oppression, but this kills the narrative of liberal ideology in which the minorities absolutely cannot be brought into question. The oppression they face by the majority is the only oppression they face, and that's it. The same is true for the Islamic community. We could be propping up Maajid and Ayaan for trying to fight in favor of women's rights and secular values, and against Jihadism and Islamism in the Islamic community, but instead we grant higher voices to the ones who say "don't criticize me you bigot!" Alas, you have safe spaces, trigger warnings, victim culture, the promotion regressive liberalism, and not a damn thing solved in the way of true social justice.

 

There is nothing in my position that advocates denigrating, assaulting, or allowing minorities to be mistreated, and if I saw hateful acts of this sort on my college's campus, you bet I would defend these people. But there is no good reasons to shield anyone from opposing ideas.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[Delta1212]

I don't think that anyone should be completely shielded from opposing ideas. I don't think most people here think that.

 

I do think that when you are surrounded by opposing ideas 24/7, you deserve to have the ability to gain some respite from them. I am not in favor of having safe spaces because I think people should never have to deal with anything contrary to their own positions. I favor them for the people who either constantly, or frequently enough for it to be a constant worry, have to face some degree of opposition to who they are as people with no realistic way to choose when and where they will engage with that opposition to be able to have a way to choose not to deal with it for a little while.

 

There are, of course, people who would abuse the availability of that service, but I would rather focus on making sure that it is there for the people who need it than focus on making sure that it isn't available to people who don't need it. In this particular case, "abuse" doesn't actually harm anyone, except people who get angry that they can't pursue people wherever they want in order to argue with them against their will, so I don't really see a downside.

[swansont]

And Tampitytump is suggesting you can't stay in the safe space forever.

Eventually you have to leave the security of the college/university and go out in the real world.

 

No safe spaces out there !

That may be what he means, but that's not what he's saying.

[DrmDoc]

No, that's not it at all. I don't know why you guys can accuse me of binary thinking and straw men when you post things like this towards me. Standing your ground does not mean you're right. BLM could give equal attention to criticizing the inner workings of the African American community, including the staggering numbers of black on black crime that happen in much higher amounts than police brutality, but they don't. There could be reformists (and there are) granting equal criticisms to the community itself whilst fighting bigotry and oppression, but this kills the narrative of liberal ideology in which the minorities absolutely cannot be brought into question. The oppression they face by the majority is the only oppression they face, and that's it. The same is true for the Islamic community. We could be propping up Maajid and Ayaan for trying to fight in favor of women's rights and secular values, and against Jihadism and Islamism in the Islamic community, but instead we grant higher voices to the ones who say "don't criticize me you bigot!" Alas, you have safe spaces, trigger warnings, victim culture, the promotion regressive liberalism, and not a damn thing solved in the way of true social justice.

 

There is nothing in my position that advocates denigrating, assaulting, or allowing minorities to be mistreated, and if I saw hateful acts of this sort on my college's campus, you bet I would defend these people. But there is no good reasons to shield anyone from opposing ideas.

 

Criticism is ok but bigoted criticism is not. Examples of bigoted criticism are those that seek to divert attention away from a cause or movement and those with intent to dilute the effectiveness of a cause such as suggesting its focus should include other complex issues (e.g., black on black crime) unrelated to the origin of the cause.

[Tampitump]

I don't think that anyone should be completely shielded from opposing ideas. I don't think most people here think that.

 

I favor them for the people who either constantly, or frequently enough for it to be a constant worry, have to face some degree of opposition

 

There are, of course, people who would abuse the availability of that service,

Now there's a good summary of my argument.

 

I don't disagree that people deserve to be able to get away from hate and oppression. But my concern for what might happen with safe spaces, the abuses of them, the encroachment of their philosophies into academia (which have already happened in the form of trigger warnings), the tendency to be more about promotIng an ideology and victim narrative rather than truly helping minorities, the fact that it could very well impede a student's ability to learn facts because they can't be "triggered", etc etc etc. My concern for these things (which I think is legitimate) overrides my agreement with you on that point, and so I don't support safe spaces or PC ideology. I try to look at the big picture and what these things, when taken too far, are likely to cause for the world.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tampitump

[swansont]

Now there's a good summary of my argument.

I don't disagree that people deserve to be able to get away from hate and oppression. But my concern for what might happen with safe spaces, the abuses of them, the encroachment of their philosophies into academia (which have already happened in the form of trigger warnings), the tendency to be more about promotIng an ideology and victim narrative rather than truly helping minorities, the fact that it could very well impede a student's ability to learn facts because they can't be "triggered", etc etc etc. My concern for these things (which I think is legitimate) overrides my agreement with you on that point, and so I don't support safe spaces or PC ideology. I try to look at the big picture and what these things, when taken too far, are likely to cause for the world.

So you decided to take the straw man down the slippery slope.

 

What do you think a trigger warning is?

[Tampitump]

So you decided to take the straw man down the slippery slope.

 

What do you think a trigger warning is?

You win swansont, you win. Truce, I give up.

 

I can't even even get a "Hey, I see where you're coming from on that, but..."

 

I'm wrong without exception across the board. Absolutely nothing in my position is correct or reasonable.

[Delta1212]

You win swansont, you win. Truce, I give up.

 

I can't even even get a "Hey, I see where you're coming from on that, but..."

 

I'm wrong without exception across the board. Absolutely nothing in my position is correct or reasonable.

Well, personally, I understand your perspective, I just disagree with it. Some of that is opinion, and in some areas I also think you are objectively, factually incorrect on certain points, but I do understand what the overall sentiment you express arises from.

 

I'm not sure whether that helps you at all.

[CharonY]

And Tampitytump is suggesting you can't stay in the safe space forever.

Eventually you have to leave the security of the college/university and go out in the real world.

 

No safe spaces out there !

 

Right, and out there minorities are, well in the minority and are likely to be exposed to stereotyping. So therefore they should not have a forum to exchange their experience without calibrating it against the dominant one? What I would agree with is that the use (that I honestly do not see in a campus environment, but that is maybe only me) of context-free and almost comical use of what some call trigger warning or safe spaces that some describe.

Yet in actual action I have seen rather reasonable use. For example a lecture of a psychology prof was going to involve elements of graphic and sexual violence and he made it quite clear in his syllabus. You could call it a trigger warning, but then I would understand if some people would rather take a different course, if possible (unless, of course, it is essential for the degree).

 

Likewise, I have seen discussions organized by certain minorities, where they sought to exchange their experience from their own perspective without the need to calibrate against the white experience. This is actually a quite relevant discussion to have and even if you are there just as a listener and not a participant I found it very useful to in order to challenge my own preconceptions.

 

 

I will say that there are likely borderline cases where things get iffy. For example what if a student body wants to invite an Islamic hate preacher or another one a known racist? This generally turns into a PR issue and the admin steps in to protects its interests.

One may agree or disagree with it but they are basically business decisions. Or putting a different spin on it, what do you think about the group of guys that chanted "No means yeas and yes means anal?" (on campus, IIRC). Is that something that people should just shrug off because it is something one would face in real life? Would your attitude change if you were one of the targets?

Edited September 16, 2016 by CharonY

[swansont]

You win swansont, you win. Truce, I give up.

I can't even even get a "Hey, I see where you're coming from on that, but..."

I'm wrong without exception across the board. Absolutely nothing in my position is correct or reasonable.

Your position doesn't reflect reality. So how can it be considered correct or reasonable?

[Tampitump]

Your position doesn't reflect reality. So how can it be considered correct or reasonable?

You're right. It doesn't.

I'm so sorry for my stupidity guys. I see now that I was unequivocally wrong about every single aspect of every single thing I said on this topic down to the punctuation marks. I also see how unassailable you guys are and incapable of having incorrect positions. What the fuck was I even thinking challenging you guys? You guys were right for not conceding even the slightest portion of any of my statements, because really, what was there to concede? Every single point I made, without exception, was false, bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and idiotic.

 

Yes yes, I see now. The goal should be to sanitize the college experience so that everyone is happy at every point in time. We should not challenge the worldviews of the students, or expose them to facts that may make them uncomfortable. We must protect students from harsh realities. We must make the learning material, as well as the environment, conform to the student's comfort level, rather than ask them to learn troubling facts. In fact, lets just do away with academia altogether. College should be about happiness, inclusion, and preserving the feelings of the students, not teaching them about life or the real world.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Tampitump

[Delta1212]

You seem to get rather emotionally bound up in your points and in these discussions. Passion can be a good thing, but I'd suggest holding things at a bit more of a reserve. It makes it easier to consider different points of view and you won't take things quite so personally when people disagree with you.

[Tampitump]

And you guys should stop making everything a one-way street. But I get it, you're unassailable, and right about everything. Not even the smallest fraction of my arguments could get even the most tacit "I kind of see where you're going with that, or why you might think this is the case....." It's a one-way street.

 

 

http://www.thebestschools.org/magazine/speech-codes-and-safe-spaces/

[Arete]

A prayer room won't turn the campus into a hotbed of Islamic extremism, a queer space isn't going to cause an aids epidemic, and a safe space isn't going to mean you can't say "hermaphrodite" in plant biology class.

[Willie71]

Seriously dude? You guys criticize me for not having sound ideas, and you come up with horse shit like this? Assault IS a health risk. Verbal abuse? Nothing in my position supports verbal abuse. Verbal abuse needs to be punished. What I'm protesting is the idea that you can retreat to a designated area on oublic grounds wherein you're free from being challenged, and other people don't have the right to speak their mind aound you if you don't like what they're saying. You do not have the right to thought-police or word-police people in public.

So you support safe spaces then. Simple, isn't it?

[swansont]

 

Yes yes, I see now. The goal should be to sanitize the college experience so that everyone is happy at every point in time. We should not challenge the worldviews of the students, or expose them to facts that may make them uncomfortable. We must protect students from harsh realities. We must make the learning material, as well as the environment, conform to the student's comfort level, rather than ask them to learn troubling facts. In fact, lets just do away with academia altogether. College should be about happiness, inclusion, and preserving the feelings of the students, not teaching them about life or the real world.

 

 

Keep churning out those straw men. It's such a convincing argument.

And you guys should stop making everything a one-way street. But I get it, you're unassailable, and right about everything. Not even the smallest fraction of my arguments could get even the most tacit "I kind of see where you're going with that, or why you might think this is the case....." It's a one-way street.

 

http://www.thebestschools.org/magazine/speech-codes-and-safe-spaces/

 

 

Maybe if you ever presented specific cases something could be discussed, but when you trot out vague accusations that are caricatures of reality, there is really no point. What you're railing against doesn't actually exist.

[hypervalent_iodine]

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

 

!

Moderator Note

You can, however, fix your attitude. Enjoy your holiday.

[MigL]

To be fair Swansont, he has posted links to specific examples where it DOES exist.

The question is, how prevalent is it ?

Or is it just a few cases where its abused or incorrectly applied ?

 

But Tampitump's mood swings certainly don't help his argument.

[swansont]

To be fair Swansont, he has posted links to specific examples where it DOES exist.

.

There was one link (NYT article) with no in-thread followup. So no, we've not seen him bring up specific examples.

[MigL]

And if you'd bothered to read that NYT article, you would have found within it, links to several examples within academic institutions where the safe space concept has been corrupted, abused or misapplied.

[swansont]

And if you'd bothered to read that NYT article, you would have found within it, links to several examples within academic institutions where the safe space concept has been corrupted, abused or misapplied.

 

 

And they weren't discussed here. No examples have actually been discussed here. And having the concept misused should be an indictment of the people abusing the system, not the system itself, by the very description of "corrupted, abused or misapplied"