Print

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

[Rolan7]

Not to downplay the excellent points you all have been making, but I'm getting the impression that we mostly agree...

Public "safe spaces":  Bad, they shut down discourse
Private "safe spaces": Good, if they aren't overused
Should we call them "safe spaces"?:  personally I couldn't care less, but have fun

We probably just disagree on whether churches are at all open, but I don't think that's getting resolved since people on both sides have first hand experience.  Which implies that the answer is regional.

[Criptfeind]

Criptfiend, when was the last time Gay conversion therapy was used in a way that involved torture? And I don't mean psychological shenanigans unless it's like full on 'YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON' stuff. Read a bit about it and most of that stuff is illegal now. The gay conversion camps are like weird Freudian things at worst, most of the time, from what I could tell. Not 'Okay after archery is electroshock time!'

Bringing up how something used to be practiced as evidence for why it's evil now isn't all that great for credibility. Disease research used to involve infecting minorities without their consent or knowledge and observing how they deteriorated without treatment. Psychotherapy in general used to involve electroshock therapy.

I'm going to sidestep this question to avoid having to answer by stating what I think this is a reference too was not me giving on opinion on current gay conversion therapy. Simply answering a question about "Which group went on the bigger nation wide rampage?" There wasn't an inherent time limit given.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Not to downplay the excellent points you all have been making, but I'm getting the impression that we mostly agree...

Public "safe spaces":  Bad, they shut down discourse
Private "safe spaces": Good, if they aren't overused
Should we call them "safe spaces"?:  personally I couldn't care less, but have fun

We probably just disagree on whether churches are at all open, but I don't think that's getting resolved since people on both sides have first hand experience.  Which implies that the answer is regional.

This is fair. Though I think we don't need to call them anything. It has always been acknowledged on some level, that when you are in your own home you're entitled to privacy and decency. I don't know what other private space there cold be.

Also, gay conversion therapy should be a straight-up illegal practice.

[TheBiggerFish]

In other news: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

[wierd]

Let me be explicitly clear here.

I fully understand your Shield idea.

I am saying it is still decisive, through its unintended message.  Christian churches try very hard to be open, welcoming, and radiate safeness. That said, people burn them down. Why?

That is not the only message they send.

[Rolepgeek]

Actually an awful lot of them seem to be saying, 'if you disagree with us at all you're a horrible person who needs to be locked up' instead of even being even slightly tolerant.  To me that is fundamentally violating the spirit of tolerance and equal treatment.

@ RPG: I have no problem with people wanting to feel comfortable, but they aren't in any way shape or form guaranteed it by anything.  I choose to be respectful of other people, but I will not be forced into it by anything.

It's not about forcing you to be respectful, per se, in this context, it's about being respectful in that space, and that your other option is to leave that space. That's why it's supposed to be relatively small. 'This space' does not allow people in it who are choosing to not be respectful. It's restrictive on the basis of actions, so if you want to come in, you can (under normal circumstances), you just need to abide by the rules, much like any other private establishment or residence.

[wierd]

Not to downplay the excellent points you all have been making, but I'm getting the impression that we mostly agree...

Public "safe spaces":  Bad, they shut down discourse
Private "safe spaces": Good, if they aren't overused
Should we call them "safe spaces"?:  personally I couldn't care less, but have fun

We probably just disagree on whether churches are at all open, but I don't think that's getting resolved since people on both sides have first hand experience.  Which implies that the answer is regional.

This is fair. Though I think we don't need to call them anything. It has always been acknowledged on some level, that when you are in your own home you're entitled to privacy and decency. I don't know what other private space there cold be.

Also, gay conversion therapy should be a straight-up illegal practice.

This is greyer than you think.

One can be a full bore fundie, and be gay. They do not like their gayness. They want to not be gay, because of the stronger religious identity.

Is it wrong for them to have it as an option?

Compare: gender reassignment.

By force, horrible.
By choice?

[TheBiggerFish]

Conversion therapy should be straight-out illegal for minors though.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

(on the safe space stuff that is)

See now, that's where my issue with the concept of it. You're just relabelling common decency and giving to people as a tool to say "oh, no no no, you can't do that to me here I'm X/Y/Z!" When in reality the racists/bigots/homophobes will break your "safe space" and shit all over you and the normal people will just be like, "Okay, wasn't planning on being an asshole today anyways."

[Frumple]

Man, had a lot more typed out, but it ain't really worth the trouble. Just need to say this much, at least on this particular subject. Wierd? You do not know how country churches work. You've got (or at least are presenting) an idealized version, apparently formulated by positive experiences. These places get a hell of a lot nastier than you seem to think they do. Exclusion defines them. They're tolerant of outsiders for a bit -- sometimes, if you're the right sort and they're the right congregation -- but more than that is a helluva' sketchier question. There's a reason LGBT folks, among others, are fair fearful of the US's religious right, and it's pretty damn good. There's more than a few that are like what you've been describing. But there's a hell of a lot that aren't, too.

The rest of it... think what it boils down to, if y'ask me, is that the problem with what folks have been talking about the last bit is that you don't have a right to force your association on someone else. They ain't gotta' tolerate your shit, well intended or not, and you got no proper mandate t'force 'em to. They don't want you in a discussion, well, sod off, yeah? All this talk of respect and crap -- if you have any, you'll respect that. If they're forcin' association on you, same thing, but don't talk like they're the ones committin' some kind of moral wrong when the actual problem is they don't want you involved in their discussion.

And, y'know. When y'all are demanding these safe spaces and whatnot should screw off? What you're saying is you want the right to force your association on folks, despite their wishes. Not cool, y'ken? Public spaces are public spaces but ain't no one owe you an ear or their time.

[Criptfeind]

(on the safe space stuff that is)

See now, that's where my issue with the concept of it. You're just relabelling common decency and giving to people as a tool to say "oh, no no no, you can't do that to me here I'm X/Y/Z!" When in reality the racists/bigots/homophobes will break your "safe space" and shit all over you and the normal people will just be like, "Okay, wasn't planning on being an asshole today anyways."

How is this something you have an issue with, at least alone? Your issue is that they are ineffective?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

This is fair. Though I think we don't need to call them anything. It has always been acknowledged on some level, that when you are in your own home you're entitled to privacy and decency. I don't know what other private space there cold be.

As long as it's not a public area, it's fine for a safe space. That includes more than the home.

[Rolan7]

This is greyer than you think.

One can be a full bore fundie, and be gay. They do not like their gayness. They want to not be gay, because of the stronger religious identity.

Is it wrong for them to have it as an option?

Compare: gender reassignment.

By force, horrible.
By choice?

Ah, yeah this.
This kinda goes back to the fact that, technically, Mike Pence was talking about people voluntarily going to gay conversion therapy.

"Technically" because these are mostly minors, coerced into doing it by their parents (and hell, probably their peers).

There ARE nonconsensual gay conversion therapy camps, but not legally in the USA that I'm aware of.  Pretty sure there are some in South America.

But anyway, yeah, if you're desperate enough to try one of these camps which are basically proven not to actually work, that's your prerogative (if you're old enough to consent and are sound of mind).  I don't blame people for wanting to be at least partially straight.

Ninja'd by

Conversion therapy should be straight-out illegal for minors though.

[Rolepgeek]

(on the safe space stuff that is)

See now, that's where my issue with the concept of it. You're just relabelling common decency and giving to people as a tool to say "oh, no no no, you can't do that to me here I'm X/Y/Z!" When in reality the racists/bigots/homophobes will break your "safe space" and shit all over you and the normal people will just be like, "Okay, wasn't planning on being an asshole today anyways."

Well...no. You're making this like it's an identity thing. It's not. It's a location/area thing. 'You can't do that to me, in this place, and the reason why is that my friends and I will kick you out if you do, or call the cops.' It's a designated place where people can work together to keep each other safe. It's not an 'all the time everywhere' thing. It's a commonly negotiated area where there are rules about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

[wierd]

(on the safe space stuff that is)

See now, that's where my issue with the concept of it. You're just relabelling common decency and giving to people as a tool to say "oh, no no no, you can't do that to me here I'm X/Y/Z!" When in reality the racists/bigots/homophobes will break your "safe space" and shit all over you and the normal people will just be like, "Okay, wasn't planning on being an asshole today anyways."

Well...no. You're making this like it's an identity thing. It's not. It's a location/area thing. 'You can't do that to me, in this place, and the reason why is that my friends and I will kick you out if you do, or call the cops.' It's a designated place where people can work together to keep each other safe. It's not an 'all the time everywhere' thing. It's a commonly negotiated area where there are rules about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

Not just anywhere can be a church, and some people are deeply offended by the very idea of one.

On a college? Not appropriate. The college should have rules to forbid violence regardless. That's what campus police are supposed to help with. (But admittedly, not always).  Just like it would get absurd real fast to have 50 different churches to different gods on a multiracial and multi culturally attended university, insisting on putting a "safe space" there, in a place intended for study and learning, is just bonkers.

Now, if you want to run one in the dorm, and say "hey, if you have trouble you can crash at my place." That's different, but the school shouldn't recognize it as something special just to stroke egos.