3 ms·

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
  Yes, exactly right. Thank you for more clearly articulating what I seemed to have scrawled out with crayons in comparison.
- warfangle 11y ago
  > 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. How do you feel about your HR department and their anti-discrimination and harassment policies? :) You get more protections from harassment in the workplace than students get on campus. Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself. Discussions on why intolerance exists and what can be done to combat it are precisely why safe spaces exist. And yes, I believe university campuses should be exclusively safe places. Hate speech itself has no place in an institute of education - just as it has no place in the workplace. Discussions about hate speech, on the other hand, absolutely do.
  - noobermin 11y ago
    The poster you're replying to stresses again and again that this refers to public spaces. Even so, I'm not sure discrimination and harassment reach the same bar as discussing things like abortion in the abstract, for example. Personally, I'm not sure I'd support anyone harassing another personally, although if speech isn't intimidating to a person, you can't say it's harassment, I think (IANAL).
    - warfangle 11y ago
      Yep. But public spaces in context of the larger discussion at hand refers to universities as well. Nobody's saying that we should turn main street of podunk, OH into a designated safe place (though, it says a lot about the culture in america that it is decidedly NOT a safe place to be if you're LGBTQ/POC/etc).
  - ThatGeoGuy 11y ago
    > Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself. I would argue that this is an unverified and overblown statement. In fact, I don't even see why this would eventually lead itself to be true, unless you already consider bigotry and hatred to be the majority norm in a very pervasive sense. I could write more on the matter, but others have done some considerable study on the matter [1]. I would say that overall being tolerant of intolerance is a good thing, because these people naturally exclude themselves from social structures and circles of power where they are expected to maintain a leadership role towards those they are bigoted against. Further, by integrating intolerant people with those of us who are tolerant, there is more chance for them to learn why their hatred may be misplaced, and for us to learn where the boundaries of our own personal expression should be. Thinking merely that we must "stamp out all hatred" is in fact a form of hatred in itself. You can't fight fire with fire here. [1] http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-todays-students-less-tolerant-than-their-parents/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-toda...

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
Yes, exactly right. Thank you for more clearly articulating what I seemed to have scrawled out with crayons in comparison.
warfangle 11y ago
> 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. How do you feel about your HR department and their anti-discrimination and harassment policies? :) You get more protections from harassment in the workplace than students get on campus. Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself. Discussions on why intolerance exists and what can be done to combat it are precisely why safe spaces exist. And yes, I believe university campuses should be exclusively safe places. Hate speech itself has no place in an institute of education - just as it has no place in the workplace. Discussions about hate speech, on the other hand, absolutely do.
- noobermin 11y ago
  The poster you're replying to stresses again and again that this refers to public spaces. Even so, I'm not sure discrimination and harassment reach the same bar as discussing things like abortion in the abstract, for example. Personally, I'm not sure I'd support anyone harassing another personally, although if speech isn't intimidating to a person, you can't say it's harassment, I think (IANAL).
  - warfangle 11y ago
    Yep. But public spaces in context of the larger discussion at hand refers to universities as well. Nobody's saying that we should turn main street of podunk, OH into a designated safe place (though, it says a lot about the culture in america that it is decidedly NOT a safe place to be if you're LGBTQ/POC/etc).
- ThatGeoGuy 11y ago
  > Tolerance of intolerance (e.g., hate speech) leads inevitability to the extinction of tolerance itself. I would argue that this is an unverified and overblown statement. In fact, I don't even see why this would eventually lead itself to be true, unless you already consider bigotry and hatred to be the majority norm in a very pervasive sense. I could write more on the matter, but others have done some considerable study on the matter [1]. I would say that overall being tolerant of intolerance is a good thing, because these people naturally exclude themselves from social structures and circles of power where they are expected to maintain a leadership role towards those they are bigoted against. Further, by integrating intolerant people with those of us who are tolerant, there is more chance for them to learn why their hatred may be misplaced, and for us to learn where the boundaries of our own personal expression should be. Thinking merely that we must "stamp out all hatred" is in fact a form of hatred in itself. You can't fight fire with fire here. [1] http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-todays-students-less-tolerant-than-their-parents/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-toda...