7 ms·

There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. A "safe spa

There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die. A "safe space" is a place where people can discuss the actual issues of hatred, bigotry and violence without fear of reprise for being the hated, the attacked, the marginalized. There's a stark difference between "This isn't a place for saying hurtful things; this is a place for talking about why saying those things are hurtful. That's why we're not letting you in here while you continue to marginalize the oppressed. Let's talk about why you think the oppressed should be marginalized instead." All the anti-safe-space discussion on Hacker News lately is truly, horribly, fucking disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred that worms its way through developer culture. They are absofuckinglutely not cudgels of fear. And people who claim they are need to take a real fucking hard look at themselves and their views on those who are verbally bullied, physically attacked, raped, and murdered for being who they fucking are.

chrisdbaldwin 11y ago
That's a long way of saying "shut up."
- warfangle 11y ago
  That's a long way of saying "you don't matter."
mkrfox 11y ago
That's what's so annoying. Everyone's having this big screaming conversation about something and using the words for something else, like they're working with some kind of bilingual dictionary. The entries for "safe space" and "trigger warning" got mixed up with a Sudoku puzzle, and everyone's pretending it makes perfect sense instead of looking for a better dictionary.
- warfangle 11y ago
  Trigger warnings are important, in the context of a safe place. I'm coming from the direction of a) being genderqueer and b) having survived sexual assault. Safe places have been remarkable in giving me a place to discuss my feelings about gender without ridicule or hate. Trigger warnings have been pivotal in me recovering from being molested as a pre-teen. I'm actively scared of coming out in the developer community, because of its deep rooted misogyny. But here I am :) (edit: I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Thanks for proving me right, HN.)
  - mkrfox 11y ago
    I always appreciate warnings that let me be ready to read or hear about the few things that still bug me (nothing as rough as your b). Way more effective than the "tough love" so many advocate.
  - doktrin 11y ago
    > I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Do you really think that's why you were downvoted?
    - warfangle 11y ago
      I mean, it's either that or people who really really hate the idea of someone getting their mental health together with useful tools like safe spaces and trigger words :)
      - zaroth 11y ago
        I didn't downvote, but accusing the entire community of deep rooted misogyny might have something to do with it?
        warfangle 11y ago
        Are you denying that there is deep rooted (if surface-subtle) misogyny obvious in the comment thread on just about every post about women in tech / safe places / gamergate / just about anything that challenges the authority of cis-gendered white men?
hiddencost 11y ago
Amen.
angersock 11y ago
I don't think the disdain for these safe spaces is necessarily from sexism and hatred (though HN has issues with those). The basic "problem" from developer culture is that it is heavily rooted in systems logic, and frankly safe spaces as proposed and as advertised and as popularly understood are illogical. Very simply, using your definition, the safe space both proclaims to allow discussion and then by its very definition excludes one side of that same discussion. If the claim was "Hey, look, we just need a separate place where we don't fear bullying, violence, and microaggressions" that would be understandable and not a problem. However, the claim is invariably appended with "And we can have useful discussions here, and no other place can have useful discussions, and we accept everyone--except these other people that we decide have badthink" and once that amendment is made it triggers the developer bullshit alarm.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  You've mistaken discussion in general—which encompasses a fairly broad range of exchanges—with a particularly narrow subset that is characterized by clearly defined and opposing positions, along with acceptance of adversarial engagement from "both sides" of the issue. There's a time and a place for that, to be sure, but there are many more cases in which the forceful imposition of a binary outlook has effects that are socially inhibiting, making it a serious impediment to free discussion and open development of ideas. If a person cannot (or will not) recognize when taking a narrow and combative approach just makes them an asshole, then the "logical" response is to keep them far enough away to prevent their noxious manner from derailing otherwise productive exchanges.
  - angersock 11y ago
    I would suggest that the most people would have a decent chance of having non-combative discussion; however, the construction of the spaces tends to throw out those folks along with the more toxic and dedicated trolls and harassers. Moreover, even attempts at polite discussion are often dismissed as sealioning or whatnot--and thus, by being hypersensitive and assuming a victim stance, truly productive and civil discourse is prevented. Additionally, these spaces do not facilitate a "productive" exchange: we can wager that few really new ideas are being exchanged. Politely, it's a chance to reaffirm values and provide a sense of belonging and comfort. Impolitely, it's a circlejerk. If people need a place to find comfort, that's great! To claim anything other than that, especially that it somehow is some setting for honest and fair discourse, is a misrepresentation.
nkassis 11y ago
I was following your argument until this part: "All the anti-safe-space discussion on Hacker News lately is truly, horribly, fucking disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred that worms its way through developer culture." I don't see how you made this connection. The way it's worded seems to imply that holding opinions that safe space have issues in practice would lead to being sexist and have hatred (which I presume you meant against oppressed groups generally for which safe spaces are added). I disagree strongly with this.
- warfangle 11y ago
  Holding the opinion that safe spaces are cudgels of fear used to intimidate people probably indicates exactly what I said it did.
  - tristor 11y ago
    At this point, I realize you're trolling, but in the interest of anyone else reading I feel it's appropriate to reply. I'm someone who pretty universally supports the rights of others to be themselves, however that might be, and be treated with respect as a human being. That said, the term "safe space" is something I've never personally encountered being used in the context you present it in. When a group of like-minded people come together in a private space, they don't then declare "This place is a safe space for $x people". It's obvious that everyone present is of like-mind, and those who are there for purposes other than discussion of the topic at hand can be expelled through social means as a consensus action of the group without any need for authority involvement. Meanwhile, I often hear the term "safe space" used by people when they want to take over a shared space to insulate themselves from people who might disagree with them or maybe even be bigots towards them, while in public. I am not in any way arguing that bigotry is socially acceptable, but it is protected speech, and while it is perfectly appropriate to tell people that their bigotry is offensive, inappropriate, and unwelcome, it's not appropriate to ask that an authority come in and forcibly establish a zone in a shared space where-in some speech is okay and other speech is not. My opinion, which I think is largely in-line with the person you replied to, is not one born out of hatred or bigotry, it's born out of concern about the death of dissent. It's a concern that our culture is shifting to one where everyone lives in an echo chamber and is intolerant of any ideas not of their own making. It is perfectly acceptable as a society to be intolerant of intolerance, and that includes both intolerance based in bigotry as well as intolerance based in delusion. This is not an argument in favor of people "just taking it" when others behave in inappropriate ways towards them, but it is a plea for reason around dissent. Respectful disagreement is not offensive or inappropriate, even though some people may use disrespectful terms in their dissent which themselves are offensive or inappropriate, that does not mean that all people who disagree are inherently offensive. It is not oppression to disagree with someone, it is oppression to prevent dissenting opinions. Given that so much of the influence and respect people in the public eye have these days is based on the appearance that they're socially/politically appropriate, it's very clear how claims of victimhood can be used to intimidate. In some cases, I don't have much sympathy for those who have come under fire since they are in a position to clearly state their position and walk away relatively unscathed, but some people unfortunately are not in that situation. Take for instance, the two Yale professors who clearly argued for school administrators to allow students to define their own standards and for students to have a discussion, instead were reviled unfairly by some students who instead want administrators to use their authority to impose speech controls. Unfortunately, those Yale professors have less influence with which to save themselves than the administrators who more often come under fire. Perhaps the most confusing thing to me about this whole situation is that in most cases the people calling for "safe spaces" are people who are part of marginalized groups or are saying that they act on behalf of marginalized groups. The social concepts surrounding free association, free speech, and dissent are there to protect marginalized groups. It allows them to exist, gather, and discuss their ideas, thoughts, experiences, and feelings and to publicly disagree with people who are in the majority groups and be protected from the oppression of being silenced by authority while doing so. It seems strange to me that the people claiming to be proponents of marginalized groups would want to take away these protections from anyone. I could write more, but I don't think it would lend anything else to the point I'm trying to make. If anyone reading this is unable to understand the difference between free association of like-minded people in private spaces vs trying to enforce speech controls on everyone, including those who may not be like-minded, in a shared space, and why the latter might be concerning to many for reasons that do not originate from any personal hatred or bigotry, I will attempt to clarify further. Otherwise, I hope the above is well-stated enough to put forward that position.
aggieben 11y ago
A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die. FWIW, this concept of safe space isn't quite what I had in mind. I think, perhaps, what I failed to articulate is that the safe space concept that grinds my gears is the kind that is an expectation carried around by people who really do just want to shut other up. Professor said something they didn't like? "Waaah...this classroom isn't a safe space". Group-I'm-not-a-part-of says something they don't like? "Waaah...they're making my school a not-safe place". I have no problem with the idea of a physically-located place with heightened expectations of civility.
- warfangle 11y ago
  The professor is the one who brought up the safe place terminology in this instance. Not the student. One thing to realize, also, is the context of love (as the topic of discussion in the classroom was in 1 Corinthians 13) in many evangelical circles. Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else. Even when it hurts. It's about staying in an abusive relationship because you need to submit to your husband's wishes, no matter what. It is not the selfless emotional connection of one person to another. It is the subjugation of the self. This student may very well have felt victimized for how love was being talked about. But all we know about the classroom discussion was that the topic was 1 Corinthians 13. Not what was actually talked about with regard to that chapter. I've heard 1 Corinthians 13 be twisted in some very evil ways.
  - brightball 11y ago
    "Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else." Please do not read any tone into what I'm saying here, because if you've gotten that message I honestly don't know how. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." - John 13:34 The verse you reference above is in the context of marriage and you hear it a lot at weddings, but the context of love within Christian community is always going to go straight to the way that Jesus defined it. There's no part of the Christian community that is going to try to override what Jesus said. "Just as I have loved you" means unconditionally. It doesn't mean as long as they agree with you, have the same color skin as you, speak the same language as you or fit some specific stencil. I realize this is a bit off-kilter for Hacker News but sermons that talk about how we are all sinners in need of forgiveness are there specifically for two reasons. 1. No matter what you have done, God will forgive you. No matter what you have done, God loves you. 2. Because God will forgive the worst of us who truly asks for forgiveness, we have no right to deny forgiveness to anyone who truly asks for it either. I've visited a lot of different churches throughout the southeast in my life and I've never once heard a minister say anything that implies anything other than the above.
darkr 11y ago
> There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. The concept of safe spaces originally came out of the societal intersection of the LGBT, Riot grrrl and 3rd wave feminist movements of the late 80's/early 90's, where there was an existential threat of violence and intimidation from opponents/bigots/homophobes/just dicks. As you say, vital for those movements and the people in them at the time. Where the threat is not of violence and intimidation, but rather of hurt feelings due to encountering someone with different political or religious views from you, I think it's better for society as a whole for those feelings to get hurt; or preferably some spirited and hopefully non-intentionally inflammatory discourse to occur between people of opposing views so that we can better understand each other and progress as a society. I'm not saying that safe spaces are not needed any more, just that they seem to be increasingly used where they are not necessary.
ForHackernews 11y ago
> They are absofuckinglutely not cudgels of fear. Relevant reading: https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword/ https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-sp... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...
- warfangle 11y ago
  Relevant reading: http://www.gayalliance.org/programs/education-safezone/safezone-programs/ http://www.gayalliance.org/programs/education-safezone/safez...
ender89 11y ago
Hey, this is a safe space for anti-safe-spacers and you're making us feel distinctly unsafe by being purposefully hurtful; stating that all anti-safe-spacers are hateful sexist racists who don't notice when someone leaves a comparison dangling (There's a stark difference between "this isn't a place for hurtful things" and what?). You should know that anti-safe-spacers are a diverse group of individuals from all walks of life, genders, races, and wolf/human hybrids. We're only intolerant of people who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch. Also, I hope you realize how silly you sound. "Safe Spaces" are supposed to be free from antagonizing rhetoric, violence, and judgement. Its not supposed to be safe from the emotional pain you feel when someone tells you that you might be wrong for the first time in your life, or that a college sorority girl dressing up as Mulan isn't culturally insensitive (especially in today's world where the lines that traditionally divide us are being constantly eroded by near instant communication and a sub 24 hour flight to anywhere on the globe), or that god forbid that racism is not exclusive to white people of Anglo-Saxon decent. College specifically is about challenging world views and teaching students first and fore most how to become citizens of the world. Its not for "safe spaces" where students are tucked into comfortable rooms with rounded corners and foam flooring to make sure they never hurt themselves.

chrisdbaldwin 11y ago

That's a long way of saying "shut up."

warfangle 11y ago
That's a long way of saying "you don't matter."

mkrfox 11y ago

That's what's so annoying. Everyone's having this big screaming conversation about something and using the words for something else, like they're working with some kind of bilingual dictionary. The entries for "safe space" and "trigger warning" got mixed up with a Sudoku puzzle, and everyone's pretending it makes perfect sense instead of looking for a better dictionary.

warfangle 11y ago
Trigger warnings are important, in the context of a safe place. I'm coming from the direction of a) being genderqueer and b) having survived sexual assault. Safe places have been remarkable in giving me a place to discuss my feelings about gender without ridicule or hate. Trigger warnings have been pivotal in me recovering from being molested as a pre-teen. I'm actively scared of coming out in the developer community, because of its deep rooted misogyny. But here I am :) (edit: I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Thanks for proving me right, HN.)
- mkrfox 11y ago
  I always appreciate warnings that let me be ready to read or hear about the few things that still bug me (nothing as rough as your b). Way more effective than the "tough love" so many advocate.
- doktrin 11y ago
  > I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Do you really think that's why you were downvoted?
  - warfangle 11y ago
    I mean, it's either that or people who really really hate the idea of someone getting their mental health together with useful tools like safe spaces and trigger words :)
    - zaroth 11y ago
      I didn't downvote, but accusing the entire community of deep rooted misogyny might have something to do with it?
      - warfangle 11y ago
        Are you denying that there is deep rooted (if surface-subtle) misogyny obvious in the comment thread on just about every post about women in tech / safe places / gamergate / just about anything that challenges the authority of cis-gendered white men?

hiddencost 11y ago

Amen.

angersock 11y ago

I don't think the disdain for these safe spaces is necessarily from sexism and hatred (though HN has issues with those). The basic "problem" from developer culture is that it is heavily rooted in systems logic, and frankly safe spaces as proposed and as advertised and as popularly understood are illogical. Very simply, using your definition, the safe space both proclaims to allow discussion and then by its very definition excludes one side of that same discussion. If the claim was "Hey, look, we just need a separate place where we don't fear bullying, violence, and microaggressions" that would be understandable and not a problem. However, the claim is invariably appended with "And we can have useful discussions here, and no other place can have useful discussions, and we accept everyone--except these other people that we decide have badthink" and once that amendment is made it triggers the developer bullshit alarm.

alexqgb 11y ago
You've mistaken discussion in general—which encompasses a fairly broad range of exchanges—with a particularly narrow subset that is characterized by clearly defined and opposing positions, along with acceptance of adversarial engagement from "both sides" of the issue. There's a time and a place for that, to be sure, but there are many more cases in which the forceful imposition of a binary outlook has effects that are socially inhibiting, making it a serious impediment to free discussion and open development of ideas. If a person cannot (or will not) recognize when taking a narrow and combative approach just makes them an asshole, then the "logical" response is to keep them far enough away to prevent their noxious manner from derailing otherwise productive exchanges.
- angersock 11y ago
  I would suggest that the most people would have a decent chance of having non-combative discussion; however, the construction of the spaces tends to throw out those folks along with the more toxic and dedicated trolls and harassers. Moreover, even attempts at polite discussion are often dismissed as sealioning or whatnot--and thus, by being hypersensitive and assuming a victim stance, truly productive and civil discourse is prevented. Additionally, these spaces do not facilitate a "productive" exchange: we can wager that few really new ideas are being exchanged. Politely, it's a chance to reaffirm values and provide a sense of belonging and comfort. Impolitely, it's a circlejerk. If people need a place to find comfort, that's great! To claim anything other than that, especially that it somehow is some setting for honest and fair discourse, is a misrepresentation.

nkassis 11y ago

I was following your argument until this part: "All the anti-safe-space discussion on Hacker News lately is truly, horribly, fucking disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred that worms its way through developer culture." I don't see how you made this connection. The way it's worded seems to imply that holding opinions that safe space have issues in practice would lead to being sexist and have hatred (which I presume you meant against oppressed groups generally for which safe spaces are added). I disagree strongly with this.

warfangle 11y ago
Holding the opinion that safe spaces are cudgels of fear used to intimidate people probably indicates exactly what I said it did.
- tristor 11y ago
  At this point, I realize you're trolling, but in the interest of anyone else reading I feel it's appropriate to reply. I'm someone who pretty universally supports the rights of others to be themselves, however that might be, and be treated with respect as a human being. That said, the term "safe space" is something I've never personally encountered being used in the context you present it in. When a group of like-minded people come together in a private space, they don't then declare "This place is a safe space for $x people". It's obvious that everyone present is of like-mind, and those who are there for purposes other than discussion of the topic at hand can be expelled through social means as a consensus action of the group without any need for authority involvement. Meanwhile, I often hear the term "safe space" used by people when they want to take over a shared space to insulate themselves from people who might disagree with them or maybe even be bigots towards them, while in public. I am not in any way arguing that bigotry is socially acceptable, but it is protected speech, and while it is perfectly appropriate to tell people that their bigotry is offensive, inappropriate, and unwelcome, it's not appropriate to ask that an authority come in and forcibly establish a zone in a shared space where-in some speech is okay and other speech is not. My opinion, which I think is largely in-line with the person you replied to, is not one born out of hatred or bigotry, it's born out of concern about the death of dissent. It's a concern that our culture is shifting to one where everyone lives in an echo chamber and is intolerant of any ideas not of their own making. It is perfectly acceptable as a society to be intolerant of intolerance, and that includes both intolerance based in bigotry as well as intolerance based in delusion. This is not an argument in favor of people "just taking it" when others behave in inappropriate ways towards them, but it is a plea for reason around dissent. Respectful disagreement is not offensive or inappropriate, even though some people may use disrespectful terms in their dissent which themselves are offensive or inappropriate, that does not mean that all people who disagree are inherently offensive. It is not oppression to disagree with someone, it is oppression to prevent dissenting opinions. Given that so much of the influence and respect people in the public eye have these days is based on the appearance that they're socially/politically appropriate, it's very clear how claims of victimhood can be used to intimidate. In some cases, I don't have much sympathy for those who have come under fire since they are in a position to clearly state their position and walk away relatively unscathed, but some people unfortunately are not in that situation. Take for instance, the two Yale professors who clearly argued for school administrators to allow students to define their own standards and for students to have a discussion, instead were reviled unfairly by some students who instead want administrators to use their authority to impose speech controls. Unfortunately, those Yale professors have less influence with which to save themselves than the administrators who more often come under fire. Perhaps the most confusing thing to me about this whole situation is that in most cases the people calling for "safe spaces" are people who are part of marginalized groups or are saying that they act on behalf of marginalized groups. The social concepts surrounding free association, free speech, and dissent are there to protect marginalized groups. It allows them to exist, gather, and discuss their ideas, thoughts, experiences, and feelings and to publicly disagree with people who are in the majority groups and be protected from the oppression of being silenced by authority while doing so. It seems strange to me that the people claiming to be proponents of marginalized groups would want to take away these protections from anyone. I could write more, but I don't think it would lend anything else to the point I'm trying to make. If anyone reading this is unable to understand the difference between free association of like-minded people in private spaces vs trying to enforce speech controls on everyone, including those who may not be like-minded, in a shared space, and why the latter might be concerning to many for reasons that do not originate from any personal hatred or bigotry, I will attempt to clarify further. Otherwise, I hope the above is well-stated enough to put forward that position.

aggieben 11y ago

A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die. FWIW, this concept of safe space isn't quite what I had in mind. I think, perhaps, what I failed to articulate is that the safe space concept that grinds my gears is the kind that is an expectation carried around by people who really do just want to shut other up. Professor said something they didn't like? "Waaah...this classroom isn't a safe space". Group-I'm-not-a-part-of says something they don't like? "Waaah...they're making my school a not-safe place". I have no problem with the idea of a physically-located place with heightened expectations of civility.

warfangle 11y ago
The professor is the one who brought up the safe place terminology in this instance. Not the student. One thing to realize, also, is the context of love (as the topic of discussion in the classroom was in 1 Corinthians 13) in many evangelical circles. Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else. Even when it hurts. It's about staying in an abusive relationship because you need to submit to your husband's wishes, no matter what. It is not the selfless emotional connection of one person to another. It is the subjugation of the self. This student may very well have felt victimized for how love was being talked about. But all we know about the classroom discussion was that the topic was 1 Corinthians 13. Not what was actually talked about with regard to that chapter. I've heard 1 Corinthians 13 be twisted in some very evil ways.
- brightball 11y ago
  "Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else." Please do not read any tone into what I'm saying here, because if you've gotten that message I honestly don't know how. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." - John 13:34 The verse you reference above is in the context of marriage and you hear it a lot at weddings, but the context of love within Christian community is always going to go straight to the way that Jesus defined it. There's no part of the Christian community that is going to try to override what Jesus said. "Just as I have loved you" means unconditionally. It doesn't mean as long as they agree with you, have the same color skin as you, speak the same language as you or fit some specific stencil. I realize this is a bit off-kilter for Hacker News but sermons that talk about how we are all sinners in need of forgiveness are there specifically for two reasons. 1. No matter what you have done, God will forgive you. No matter what you have done, God loves you. 2. Because God will forgive the worst of us who truly asks for forgiveness, we have no right to deny forgiveness to anyone who truly asks for it either. I've visited a lot of different churches throughout the southeast in my life and I've never once heard a minister say anything that implies anything other than the above.

darkr 11y ago

> There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. The concept of safe spaces originally came out of the societal intersection of the LGBT, Riot grrrl and 3rd wave feminist movements of the late 80's/early 90's, where there was an existential threat of violence and intimidation from opponents/bigots/homophobes/just dicks. As you say, vital for those movements and the people in them at the time. Where the threat is not of violence and intimidation, but rather of hurt feelings due to encountering someone with different political or religious views from you, I think it's better for society as a whole for those feelings to get hurt; or preferably some spirited and hopefully non-intentionally inflammatory discourse to occur between people of opposing views so that we can better understand each other and progress as a society. I'm not saying that safe spaces are not needed any more, just that they seem to be increasingly used where they are not necessary.

ForHackernews 11y ago

> They are absofuckinglutely not cudgels of fear. Relevant reading: https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword/ https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-sp... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...

warfangle 11y ago
Relevant reading: http://www.gayalliance.org/programs/education-safezone/safezone-programs/ http://www.gayalliance.org/programs/education-safezone/safez...

ender89 11y ago

Hey, this is a safe space for anti-safe-spacers and you're making us feel distinctly unsafe by being purposefully hurtful; stating that all anti-safe-spacers are hateful sexist racists who don't notice when someone leaves a comparison dangling (There's a stark difference between "this isn't a place for hurtful things" and what?). You should know that anti-safe-spacers are a diverse group of individuals from all walks of life, genders, races, and wolf/human hybrids. We're only intolerant of people who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch. Also, I hope you realize how silly you sound. "Safe Spaces" are supposed to be free from antagonizing rhetoric, violence, and judgement. Its not supposed to be safe from the emotional pain you feel when someone tells you that you might be wrong for the first time in your life, or that a college sorority girl dressing up as Mulan isn't culturally insensitive (especially in today's world where the lines that traditionally divide us are being constantly eroded by near instant communication and a sub 24 hour flight to anywhere on the globe), or that god forbid that racism is not exclusive to white people of Anglo-Saxon decent. College specifically is about challenging world views and teaching students first and fore most how to become citizens of the world. Its not for "safe spaces" where students are tucked into comfortable rooms with rounded corners and foam flooring to make sure they never hurt themselves.