Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

Are "safe spaces" places to discuss without negative consequences, or are they places for people of one opinion to shut out people who disagree, and where there are only consequences for having an opposing viewpoint? See, when I think of safe spaces, what I immediately think of is that Yale incident where one staffer sent an email out questioning a policy on halloween costumes and questioning the concept of cultural appropriation (and it wasn't some racist diatribe), and then both her and her husband were pretty much mobbed by students furious that they dare disagree, stating that this email no longer made their dorm area feel like a safe space, or feel comfortable. I'm starting college this fall, and I sure as hell don't want to be shouted down or something like that because I have viewpoints that are going to be diametrically opposed to a lot of what one finds in the typical university (especially because I'm in California) and could risk poking the echo-chamber atmosphere of these "safe spaces".

[GreatJustice]

I love it when words are so overloaded with politically charged connotations and meanings that just using them implicitly affirms the correctness of a particular viewpoint, and then when the word is challenged people fall back onto the neutral definition of the word that the loaded word replaced.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

I don't love it when I don't get what's going on.

This topic makes me feel like I walked into an ongoing conversation. That is not a good feeling. This stuff is either relevant (I should know about it) or irrelevant (I should know not to care about it). What are the current "sides" trying to do?

[Sheb]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all ideas are equals and deserve to be heard the same. By giving them a platform, especially in a "intellectual" setting like a university, you give them credibility. I'm thinking here of stuff like Damkins refusing to debate Creationists for exemple.

Of course, refusing to give a platform to speaker because you don't agree with can be a slippery slope and caution must be had, but there are real reasons to do so.

[Rolepgeek]

Are "safe spaces" places to discuss without negative consequences, or are they places for people of one opinion to shut out people who disagree, and where there are only consequences for having an opposing viewpoint? See, when I think of safe spaces, what I immediately think of is that Yale incident where one staffer sent an email out questioning a policy on halloween costumes and questioning the concept of cultural appropriation (and it wasn't some racist diatribe), and then both her and her husband were pretty much mobbed by students furious that they dare disagree, stating that this email no longer made their dorm area feel like a safe space, or feel comfortable. I'm starting college this fall, and I sure as hell don't want to be shouted down or something like that because I have viewpoints that are going to be diametrically opposed to a lot of what one finds in the typical university (especially because I'm in California) and could risk poking the echo-chamber atmosphere of these "safe spaces".

Unfortunately, due to people misusing the word, it is entirely based on context.

The original meaning of the word is not that former definition, though. It is places where people can be free of being shamed or judged for who they are, and be allowed to speak their part without being harassed for it, usually around a single issue. Which I love and want to keep. I do not, however, think the entirety of a campus, or a graduation speech, need be a safe space. I think they are meant to be very specific areas/times and places.

Luckily, as far as I'm aware, this has not yet applied to specific classes where students get kicked out for not thinking the right things. Which might be a bad principle for some things, obviously. Fratboys chanting 'No means Yes, Yes means Anal', for example, can rot in a sack, whether they're just douchebags trying to be contrarian or consciously aware they're advocating rape. A formerly Islamic student or speaker criticizing Islam for it's treatment of women, is not something I want kicked out.

[Frumple]

Universities are supposed to be about that, as far as I'm aware. About encouraging discourse and discussion, rather than only one side getting a pulpit.

Yeah, no. Universities are about teaching, of which diverse ideological exposure is both only a part of and not unlimited in scope nor mandated in nature. There's a lot of other things involved there (student safety, public relations, etc., etc.) which are of significantly higher priority. School ain't got no responsibility to host KKK rallies in the name of fairness, or whatever the approaching extremis example would be. _{incidentally, I've seen some of anti-abortion stuff campuses have allowed, and sweet (very literally) bloody fuck if they're letting that shit in they've gone well beyond fine on the subject}

Also occasionally about profit, which is pretty much explicitly contrary to equal time for all, or research, which is again something opposing viewpoints either doesn't help much with or outright inhibits at times.

In any case, no, exposing students to any and every position out there (or giving it a good try) just kinda' isn't what a university is about. They've got a whole bunch of other stuff to do, and that can pretty easily get in the way.

And I'm pretty sure you'll at worst have to be half as quiet about your views as I was, PM. Students in particular, particularly conservative ones, have very little to fear so far as consequences for expression go, especially if they're not actively harassing people or screaming shit in the middle of the classroom or somethin' when they do it. Have some basic decency and tact, and respect if someone says they don't want to hear it, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be fine. You might get snubbed by some folks or have some teachers you don't get along with too well, but y'ain't promised acceptance and smooth sailing when it comes to ideological conflict. Just safety and an education, if you're lucky and in a liberal area.

[mainiac]

and where there are only consequences for having an opposing viewpoint?

Because sometimes you want to accept all views and other times you want to have a limited discussion.  For instance in this particular discussion it wouldn't help the conversation very much if I started including topics about your ancestry, sexuality and sexual adequacy.  So sorry, dude, you are in a limited discussion right now!  Run away!  Run away!  Go to 4chan where you can be protected from the scourge of limitation.

I don't love it when I don't get what's going on.

This topic makes me feel like I walked into an ongoing conversation. That is not a good feeling. This stuff is either relevant (I should know about it) or irrelevant (I should know not to care about it). What are the current "sides" trying to do?

That seems like a pretty good assessment.  But I think that someone summed up the ongoing conversation pretty well a while back:

I'm pretty solidly lumping this into the category "Shit previous generations took for granted, but millennials can't try to also have without being mocked for it"

This conversation has been with us since prehistory and will be with us until we are living a united federation of planets utopia.  People think about things.  That means new words and new ideas or new meanings for old ones.  And anything new will piss off someone.

[nenjin]

I love it when words are so overloaded with politically charged connotations and meanings that just using them implicitly affirms the correctness of a particular viewpoint, and then when the word is challenged people fall back onto the neutral definition of the word that the loaded word replaced.

I'm keenly interested in this, actually. I want to believe there is a trend (based on the fact it's occurring whilst I'm alive) that society has reached the point where we can interpret anything at least two ways. I feel it used to be that words kinda meant something specific and we didn't need to argue about it. For example, there was a time when everyone pretty much knew what racism referred to. We didn't debate what it meant, there was no "Equal Time" for people to discuss what racism means because there wasn't any debate. And now we debate what racism actually means. Reverse Racism, as it was known for a time, is now just "racism" where anyone can argue for discrimination against a certain group, even if on the surface its completely obvious why it doesn't apply.

I think it has to do in part with people who hold a mostly indefensible belief learning how to debate in the public space according to the rules that have evolved. For example, when disagreeing became "intolerance" in some people's minds. I'm referencing Trump supporters here who, maybe not incorrectly, criticized democrat and liberal-leaning people for resorting to disruption or violence at Trump rallies.

"Safe spaces" is now one of those things to me. As Powder Miner put it, is a safe space somewhere you can have an open discussion without negative consequences, or a place where certain opinions are not allowed? You can argue for both. Can just an opinion be harmful to someone when it's not attached to action? Is an opinion harmful period because it is intrinsically linked to action, because if % of the population holds an opinion, the likelihood of them acting on it in some way is unavoidable? (I.e., if you believe Affirmative Action is bad for everyone, and because others hold that opinion and can act politically on it, your opinion about AA effectively causes harm to a person of color in a group discussion setting? Take a more extreme example of an opinion: the majority of rapes are false reporting.)

It's to the point sometimes where real discussion becomes impossible. People can't even agree on the definition of the terms, modes, mores or attitudes they're attempting to debate on. They might as well be speaking a different language to each other. It's like the modern world's version of the Tower of Babel.

Of course, refusing to give a platform to speaker because you don't agree with can be a slippery slope and caution must be had, but there are real reasons to do so.

And it all comes back to the what you think Free Speech actually means. If it means you can come into a public space and say something unpopular without fear of reprisal. Or that you're owed your time in other people's venues for discussion. My take is that, in an effort to combat how certain viewpoints in America have been diminished over the decades, some people are trying to expand what Free Speech actually encompasses because they're finding no one is listening to their message when they're just standing on street corner shouting it (which to me is what Free Speech ultimately is there to protect. In this case consider holding a rally, starting a newspaper or website or TV program to be the same thing.) Or at the very least that their opinion or belief has some fundamental merit to it because "it's protected speech."

[RedKing]

Wow, what the fuck did this thread step in?

There's a reason all the SJW stuff had its own thread, and a reason that thread went down like the Hindenburg. Let's not fill this thread with hydrogen in the presence of so many matches.

[mainiac]

Wow, what the fuck did this thread step in?

There's a reason all the SJW stuff had its own thread, and a reason that thread went down like the Hindenburg. Let's not fill this thread with hydrogen in the presence of so many matches.

I think it could work. What if we started including warnings in posts that might piss people off?

[nenjin]

I think the fact it's a thread about RL stuff in GD serves that purpose.

[RedKing]

Wow, what the fuck did this thread step in?

There's a reason all the SJW stuff had its own thread, and a reason that thread went down like the Hindenburg. Let's not fill this thread with hydrogen in the presence of so many matches.

I think it could work. What if we started including warnings in posts that might piss people off?

Spoiler: WARNING -- MAY PISS PEOPLE OFF (click to show/hide)

I think you're wrong.

[mainiac]

Spoiler: WARNING -- MAY PISS PEOPLE OFF (click to show/hide)

I think you're wrong.

Spoiler: WARNING -- INCLUDES GREAT ACTING (click to show/hide)

I am shocked that we would disagree!

[Rolepgeek]

Let's get back to the real stove war that this thread is meant to be about:

Making fun of political candidates.

[Sheb]

Wow, what the fuck did this thread step in?

There's a reason all the SJW stuff had its own thread, and a reason that thread went down like the Hindenburg. Let's not fill this thread with hydrogen in the presence of so many matches.

Are you in Grumpy Grandpa mode today RK?