3 ms·

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.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      An interesting thought. My experience is that often, people don't just want to know the subject. People judge whether or not they want to hear something based on phrasing and content. At which point the question might be best phrased as "Do you want to hear me agree with you at length? Y/N" And that seems maybe a bit silly.
- zaroth 11y ago
  What's wrong with this line of thinking is shoveling food in someone's mouth without permission is physical assault and voicing an opinion in a public space is not even close. You do not have a right not to hear ideas you don't agree with, because if such a right existed in a world with such diverse opinions, no one could ever open their mouth. Censorship of opposing ideas carries a very real and very significant cost which I believe outweighs, by orders of magnitude, any perceived benefits. The real world doesn't come with trigger warnings pasted on every surface and prefacing every human interaction, and I think neither should a university. Obviously there are shades of gray depending on the particular speech, and we've collectively drawn a line around certain speech (call it "hate speech") which we do believe should be censored. Otherwise, the correct response to speech you don't agree with is more speech ideally in the form of reasoned and well-informed debate of the issues. What I find the most perplexing is how, in many cases it seems like the original speech which was deemed offensive or victimizing, which typically itself was not even directed at the "victim", is answered in return with extreme prejudice and hate directly aimed at the original speaker. This can also be combined with a social media campaign to attempt to politicize the whole event and inflict maximum damage. This is why I am often confused as to who is the real victim in these cases. The ad blocker analogy is interesting. Even blocking ads is somewhat contentious (e.g. lawsuits against DVRs with 30-second skip buttons, site owners saying their revenue stream has been decimated, etc.) and this is simply users controlling what their own devices are doing! Blocking an ad might deprive a site of revenue, but it doesn't deprive anyone else of their voice -- no one is being censored. You say we surely allow people to shovel words into our brains... Hearing speech you don't like is one thing, but what about someone else taking their own inability to function in a diverse culture, and using it to dictate the words anyone who happens to be around them are allowed to speak? This sounds like a case where the medicine is worse than the disease. The biggest problem with "safe spaces" is that they are not actually limited to small rooms in the student union with play-dough and elevator music, but I think a lot of people are very concerned that the intent is ultimately for the entire campus to be policed like one. And I do mean policed, because stepping afoul of the mythical safe space code of conduct is taken as a capital offense, to which you may see literal rioting in response.
  - 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.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    An interesting thought. My experience is that often, people don't just want to know the subject. People judge whether or not they want to hear something based on phrasing and content. At which point the question might be best phrased as "Do you want to hear me agree with you at length? Y/N" And that seems maybe a bit silly.
zaroth 11y ago
What's wrong with this line of thinking is shoveling food in someone's mouth without permission is physical assault and voicing an opinion in a public space is not even close. You do not have a right not to hear ideas you don't agree with, because if such a right existed in a world with such diverse opinions, no one could ever open their mouth. Censorship of opposing ideas carries a very real and very significant cost which I believe outweighs, by orders of magnitude, any perceived benefits. The real world doesn't come with trigger warnings pasted on every surface and prefacing every human interaction, and I think neither should a university. Obviously there are shades of gray depending on the particular speech, and we've collectively drawn a line around certain speech (call it "hate speech") which we do believe should be censored. Otherwise, the correct response to speech you don't agree with is more speech ideally in the form of reasoned and well-informed debate of the issues. What I find the most perplexing is how, in many cases it seems like the original speech which was deemed offensive or victimizing, which typically itself was not even directed at the "victim", is answered in return with extreme prejudice and hate directly aimed at the original speaker. This can also be combined with a social media campaign to attempt to politicize the whole event and inflict maximum damage. This is why I am often confused as to who is the real victim in these cases. The ad blocker analogy is interesting. Even blocking ads is somewhat contentious (e.g. lawsuits against DVRs with 30-second skip buttons, site owners saying their revenue stream has been decimated, etc.) and this is simply users controlling what their own devices are doing! Blocking an ad might deprive a site of revenue, but it doesn't deprive anyone else of their voice -- no one is being censored. You say we surely allow people to shovel words into our brains... Hearing speech you don't like is one thing, but what about someone else taking their own inability to function in a diverse culture, and using it to dictate the words anyone who happens to be around them are allowed to speak? This sounds like a case where the medicine is worse than the disease. The biggest problem with "safe spaces" is that they are not actually limited to small rooms in the student union with play-dough and elevator music, but I think a lot of people are very concerned that the intent is ultimately for the entire campus to be policed like one. And I do mean policed, because stepping afoul of the mythical safe space code of conduct is taken as a capital offense, to which you may see literal rioting in response.
- javajosh 11y ago