6 ms·

Doesn't matter. There's an anecdote about a student being a crybaby and that's the biggest threat facing humanity today. Get with the program. We can deal with

Doesn't matter. There's an anecdote about a student being a crybaby and that's the biggest threat facing humanity today. Get with the program. We can deal with the Christians once we sort out the safe spacers.

lghh 11y ago
> the biggest threat facing humanity today. Hyperbole? > We can deal with the Christians I don't want to deal with the Christians. I don't agree with their worldview most of the time, but the don't need to be dealt with. > once we sort out the safe spacers They are the safe spacers, just by a different name. Also, I think safe spaces are fine and they don't need sorted out. I was just making an observation on his hypocrisy and that safe spaces are not just for left-leaning people. He has cultivated a safe space for Christians and is bemoaning safe spaces for potential non-Christians.
- coderdude 11y ago
  No, we really do need to weed out the people who can't handle the argument at hand based on personal insecurity before moving forward in any discussion. Otherwise, you're just wasting cycles on them and not the actual issue. (This addresses only the first part of your comment.)
  - lghh 11y ago
    What do you mean by weed out? What are you expecting to do with them? (Not attacking, just asking)
    - coderdude 11y ago
      By weeding out I simply mean to ignore. Though weeding out also suggests identifying them as well.
      - javajosh 11y ago
        I think there's something to the idea of "consensual communication". It's odd that we don't allow people to shove food into your mouth without asking but we surely allow people to shovel words into your brain without asking. "Safe spacers" just want a generalization of an ad blocker, and I for one support their right to it (even the ones that go way too far, because determining that is not up to me.)
        coderdude 11y ago
        We might be arguing for different things. I don't believe in a blanket safe-spacer type. I think we all sometimes desire a place where our thoughts and beliefs are not challenged. For most, that is their family or a close circle of friends. I don't think it's appropriate to allow every venue to be a safe space.
        unethical_ban 11y ago
        American society as I've grown up to appreciate it is built on free speech and the free exchange of ideas; the concept that people should be challenged in their views, and be able to think critically to analyze what they hear. If a group wants to acquire private property and start a club or meeting where they gather to share like-minded ideas and be away from dissent, that is acceptable. The place for "safe spaces" away from intellectual challenge is NOT the square of a university campus.
        Kalium 11y ago
        While I'm not opposed to the notion of "consensual communication", your food analogy raises a question for me. With food, you can examine it pre-eating and have a pretty good idea of what it is and what's likely to be in it. How do you propose to determine what words you will or won't allow someone to "shovel into your brain" without allowing them access first?
        javajosh 11y ago
        I think it's pretty easy to imagine. "Would you like to see an ad for Viagra? Y/N" "I want to tell you about my views on Obama (negative). Y/N". "Would you like to hear my view on Creationism (positive). Y/N" The basic protocol requires an accurate summary of the topic and the sentiment from the initiator, and a single bit from the target. BTW this is essentially how Mormon missionaries do it ("Do you want to hear about my views on Jesus (positive)? Y/N", and I think it's great.
  - gozo 11y ago
    I have a really hard time following this discussion. I assume you are against safe spaces, but isn't that pretty much what you're suggesting as a solution here? How is "insecurity" any sort of measurable standard that doesn't quickly equate to anyone you disagree with?
    - coderdude 11y ago
      I'm not against safe spaces in general. Surely it is appropriate at times for safe spaces to exist. I don't think it's possible to measure insecurity and I don't think it's necessary to measure it. With enough life experience you can detect insecurity in an adult by the the things they say and their reactions to certain events.
kelukelugames 11y ago
I recommend adding a /s tag. The other poster didn't catch the sarcasm.
- lghh 11y ago
  Oh, it's sarcasm? I really didn't know. That's an opinion I see pretty much everywhere so I just assumed it was serious, haha.
  - nightspirit 11y ago
    The beauty of Internet flamewars is that half of the people who voted this comment to the top voted out of agreement with the literal interpretation and the other half voted because they read "you missed /s" and took it for sarcastic. What the original poster intended you never know...
    - gotchange 11y ago
      > What the original poster intended you never know... Isn't this the essence of religion after all? It's like that you don't know what were the real intentions of the OP who is unavailable and can't be reached and you're just left with vague texts and conflicting interpretations and re-interpretations making you feeling completely confused and lost.
    - licoricetic 11y ago
      What I find interesting is that such posts, which epitomize Poe's law, despite seeming ambiguous (since you don't know if OP really believes/means "X" or "not X") can still be correctly interpreted as garbage posting by readers. You don't need to figure out if they are sarcastic or not.
  - mfisher87 11y ago
    :) Who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
derrickdirge 11y ago
I wish someone would do something about the way these "Safe Spacers" make me feel!
qstyk 11y ago
Preferably, we can deal with the people that accept hear-say and anecdotes to carte blanche dismiss demographics that they aren't a part of. Especially those in forums that claim to be based on an intellectual mindset. We can deal with them, once we deal with people that attempt to ridicule a legitimate concern by making it sound like the person making the point is presenting it as "the biggest threat facing humanity today." The pervasive whining being addressed in the article is spot on and was recently addressed in another HN posting: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi... There is a large segment of society that assumes that any alternate point of view, irrespective of how it's presented, must be an attack against them. This is akin to chastising someone warning people not to pick up the active business-end of an arc-welder.

lghh 11y ago

> the biggest threat facing humanity today. Hyperbole? > We can deal with the Christians I don't want to deal with the Christians. I don't agree with their worldview most of the time, but the don't need to be dealt with. > once we sort out the safe spacers They are the safe spacers, just by a different name. Also, I think safe spaces are fine and they don't need sorted out. I was just making an observation on his hypocrisy and that safe spaces are not just for left-leaning people. He has cultivated a safe space for Christians and is bemoaning safe spaces for potential non-Christians.

coderdude 11y ago
No, we really do need to weed out the people who can't handle the argument at hand based on personal insecurity before moving forward in any discussion. Otherwise, you're just wasting cycles on them and not the actual issue. (This addresses only the first part of your comment.)
- lghh 11y ago
  What do you mean by weed out? What are you expecting to do with them? (Not attacking, just asking)
  - coderdude 11y ago
    By weeding out I simply mean to ignore. Though weeding out also suggests identifying them as well.
    - javajosh 11y ago
      I think there's something to the idea of "consensual communication". It's odd that we don't allow people to shove food into your mouth without asking but we surely allow people to shovel words into your brain without asking. "Safe spacers" just want a generalization of an ad blocker, and I for one support their right to it (even the ones that go way too far, because determining that is not up to me.)
      - coderdude 11y ago
        We might be arguing for different things. I don't believe in a blanket safe-spacer type. I think we all sometimes desire a place where our thoughts and beliefs are not challenged. For most, that is their family or a close circle of friends. I don't think it's appropriate to allow every venue to be a safe space.
      - unethical_ban 11y ago
        American society as I've grown up to appreciate it is built on free speech and the free exchange of ideas; the concept that people should be challenged in their views, and be able to think critically to analyze what they hear. If a group wants to acquire private property and start a club or meeting where they gather to share like-minded ideas and be away from dissent, that is acceptable. The place for "safe spaces" away from intellectual challenge is NOT the square of a university campus.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        While I'm not opposed to the notion of "consensual communication", your food analogy raises a question for me. With food, you can examine it pre-eating and have a pretty good idea of what it is and what's likely to be in it. How do you propose to determine what words you will or won't allow someone to "shovel into your brain" without allowing them access first?
        javajosh 11y ago
        I think it's pretty easy to imagine. "Would you like to see an ad for Viagra? Y/N" "I want to tell you about my views on Obama (negative). Y/N". "Would you like to hear my view on Creationism (positive). Y/N" The basic protocol requires an accurate summary of the topic and the sentiment from the initiator, and a single bit from the target. BTW this is essentially how Mormon missionaries do it ("Do you want to hear about my views on Jesus (positive)? Y/N", and I think it's great.
- gozo 11y ago
  I have a really hard time following this discussion. I assume you are against safe spaces, but isn't that pretty much what you're suggesting as a solution here? How is "insecurity" any sort of measurable standard that doesn't quickly equate to anyone you disagree with?
  - coderdude 11y ago
    I'm not against safe spaces in general. Surely it is appropriate at times for safe spaces to exist. I don't think it's possible to measure insecurity and I don't think it's necessary to measure it. With enough life experience you can detect insecurity in an adult by the the things they say and their reactions to certain events.

kelukelugames 11y ago

I recommend adding a /s tag. The other poster didn't catch the sarcasm.

lghh 11y ago
Oh, it's sarcasm? I really didn't know. That's an opinion I see pretty much everywhere so I just assumed it was serious, haha.
- nightspirit 11y ago
  The beauty of Internet flamewars is that half of the people who voted this comment to the top voted out of agreement with the literal interpretation and the other half voted because they read "you missed /s" and took it for sarcastic. What the original poster intended you never know...
  - gotchange 11y ago
    > What the original poster intended you never know... Isn't this the essence of religion after all? It's like that you don't know what were the real intentions of the OP who is unavailable and can't be reached and you're just left with vague texts and conflicting interpretations and re-interpretations making you feeling completely confused and lost.
  - licoricetic 11y ago
    What I find interesting is that such posts, which epitomize Poe's law, despite seeming ambiguous (since you don't know if OP really believes/means "X" or "not X") can still be correctly interpreted as garbage posting by readers. You don't need to figure out if they are sarcastic or not.
- mfisher87 11y ago
  :) Who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

derrickdirge 11y ago

I wish someone would do something about the way these "Safe Spacers" make me feel!

qstyk 11y ago

Preferably, we can deal with the people that accept hear-say and anecdotes to carte blanche dismiss demographics that they aren't a part of. Especially those in forums that claim to be based on an intellectual mindset. We can deal with them, once we deal with people that attempt to ridicule a legitimate concern by making it sound like the person making the point is presenting it as "the biggest threat facing humanity today." The pervasive whining being addressed in the article is spot on and was recently addressed in another HN posting: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi... There is a large segment of society that assumes that any alternate point of view, irrespective of how it's presented, must be an attack against them. This is akin to chastising someone warning people not to pick up the active business-end of an arc-welder.