4 ms·

So you agree that some places should be safe spaces?

mschuster91 10y ago
Some places (e.g. shelters for abused people) must be "safe spaces" to protect their occupants. Common public places however must remain open for debate and free speech (of course limited by laws prohibiting libel, Holocaust denial etc).
- DanBC 10y ago
  > of course limited by laws prohibiting libel, Holocaust denial etc). And here we see the really tricky cultural clash problem. Some Americans and most Europeans will say that there are obvious limits to free speech - holocaust denial, hate speech, fighting words, etc. But there's a sizable number of Americans (and probably a smaller number of Europeans) who'll say there should be almost no limits to freedom of speech. (Maybe a ban on distributing images of child sexual abuse, but just about everything else is fair game). Here's an English politician - Luciana Berger, showing a sample of the anti-semitic hate speech she regularly receives. Some people say that's clearly not acceptable and that Twitter should ban those users (I tend to agree with them). But a sizable number of people say it's fair enough - she's a politician, she's in the public eye, she can just block those users herself, she should put up with it, she should grow a thicker skin, etc. https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/725635171295330304/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/725635171295330304/... Working out which laws are useful to follow, and which are probably a bit too restrictive, would probably be helpful. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-court-idUSKCN0PA14120150630 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-court-idUSKCN0PA1... Or insult my old employer, even if I'm not in the country when I do so? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/11453658/American-arrested-in-UAE-after-criticising-employer-on-Facebook.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/uniteda...
  - manyxcxi 10y ago
    This is why I think it's both important that there are places people can go to avoid free speech (safe spaces), and also why we shouldn't just blanket label entire buildings/campuses/cities as safe spaces. If you were, say, a 20 year old female rape survivor it would be reasonable to expect that the campus Women's Center, which has been labeled a safe space for the purpose of my argument (and hopefully in real life), and expect that you wouldn't be confronted with someone standing at a pulpit declaring all the virtues of rape. Or denying rape, etc. etc. There should be buildings like this that are accessible to everyone. There should be support systems in place in society (college campuses included) that would allow someone to work through this, meet with similar individuals, and get proper help. However, if there is a speaker in an auditorium who has been invited to discuss his new book detailing how a rape culture has propelled industrialized society forward, he should be allowed to present his argument in that space. You, and anyone else that wants to join you, should be free to protest the living hell out of that outside the auditorium. However crazy his argument may be, we have buildings and spaces that were designed to present them. On a college campus, there's probably 50 spaces to do this. At least in the states, it's still really important to a lot of people that we can have 'crazy' people say 'crazy' things. If we want to keep that, it is important for people to be available to seek shelter from those crazy things, but we can't make the whole world a shelter.
lsadam0 10y ago
That's literally the opening line of the response. You conveniently ignored the meat of a well constructed point in an attempt to quickly show that OP agrees with you. OP has correctly exemplified the idea of 'safe spaces' being used to silence debate and discussion. Thus allowing every individual to possess their own subjective truth, and conveniently dispose with hard realities when their beliefs are in conflict with said realities. This is exactly the same as the far right in America conveniently ignoring the reality of climate change. I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely, but the danger here is individuals retreating to a 'safe space' every time life hands them lemons. We didn't progress this far in human culture by tip toeing around beliefs.
- mfringel 10y ago
  I did not ignore the rest of the argument at all. I was indirectly pointing out that the OP had used the first line, not as a statement of belief, but as a token so that they could say the rest of what they actually believe. Similarly, you say "I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely", followed by "but", followed by what you seem to actually believe. Which one of your statements is true?
  - lsadam0 10y ago
    You fail to understand that this issue is not binary. It is not required to be either fully supportive or fully against safe spaces. Safe spaces can be valuable. The original article, OP, and myself are showing a concern at the usage of safe spaces to silence debate. We shouldn't train people to retreat when their beliefs are challenged. We shouldn't train people to hold their opinions as some strange mix of subjective absolute truth. We are all wrong sometimes, and we all need to be challenged.
    - mfringel 10y ago
      I appreciate your concern. I'm also very interested in hearing your opinion on what the role of safe spaces should be, and where they are proper.
april1stislame 10y ago
Safe spaces are children moves...

Some places (e.g. shelters for abused people) must be "safe spaces" to protect their occupants. Common public places however must remain open for debate and free speech (of course limited by laws prohibiting libel, Holocaust denial etc).

DanBC 10y ago
> of course limited by laws prohibiting libel, Holocaust denial etc). And here we see the really tricky cultural clash problem. Some Americans and most Europeans will say that there are obvious limits to free speech - holocaust denial, hate speech, fighting words, etc. But there's a sizable number of Americans (and probably a smaller number of Europeans) who'll say there should be almost no limits to freedom of speech. (Maybe a ban on distributing images of child sexual abuse, but just about everything else is fair game). Here's an English politician - Luciana Berger, showing a sample of the anti-semitic hate speech she regularly receives. Some people say that's clearly not acceptable and that Twitter should ban those users (I tend to agree with them). But a sizable number of people say it's fair enough - she's a politician, she's in the public eye, she can just block those users herself, she should put up with it, she should grow a thicker skin, etc. https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/725635171295330304/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/status/725635171295330304/... Working out which laws are useful to follow, and which are probably a bit too restrictive, would probably be helpful. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-court-idUSKCN0PA14120150630 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-court-idUSKCN0PA1... Or insult my old employer, even if I'm not in the country when I do so? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/unitedarabemirates/11453658/American-arrested-in-UAE-after-criticising-employer-on-Facebook.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/uniteda...
- manyxcxi 10y ago
  This is why I think it's both important that there are places people can go to avoid free speech (safe spaces), and also why we shouldn't just blanket label entire buildings/campuses/cities as safe spaces. If you were, say, a 20 year old female rape survivor it would be reasonable to expect that the campus Women's Center, which has been labeled a safe space for the purpose of my argument (and hopefully in real life), and expect that you wouldn't be confronted with someone standing at a pulpit declaring all the virtues of rape. Or denying rape, etc. etc. There should be buildings like this that are accessible to everyone. There should be support systems in place in society (college campuses included) that would allow someone to work through this, meet with similar individuals, and get proper help. However, if there is a speaker in an auditorium who has been invited to discuss his new book detailing how a rape culture has propelled industrialized society forward, he should be allowed to present his argument in that space. You, and anyone else that wants to join you, should be free to protest the living hell out of that outside the auditorium. However crazy his argument may be, we have buildings and spaces that were designed to present them. On a college campus, there's probably 50 spaces to do this. At least in the states, it's still really important to a lot of people that we can have 'crazy' people say 'crazy' things. If we want to keep that, it is important for people to be available to seek shelter from those crazy things, but we can't make the whole world a shelter.

lsadam0 10y ago

That's literally the opening line of the response. You conveniently ignored the meat of a well constructed point in an attempt to quickly show that OP agrees with you. OP has correctly exemplified the idea of 'safe spaces' being used to silence debate and discussion. Thus allowing every individual to possess their own subjective truth, and conveniently dispose with hard realities when their beliefs are in conflict with said realities. This is exactly the same as the far right in America conveniently ignoring the reality of climate change. I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely, but the danger here is individuals retreating to a 'safe space' every time life hands them lemons. We didn't progress this far in human culture by tip toeing around beliefs.

mfringel 10y ago
I did not ignore the rest of the argument at all. I was indirectly pointing out that the OP had used the first line, not as a statement of belief, but as a token so that they could say the rest of what they actually believe. Similarly, you say "I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely", followed by "but", followed by what you seem to actually believe. Which one of your statements is true?
- lsadam0 10y ago
  You fail to understand that this issue is not binary. It is not required to be either fully supportive or fully against safe spaces. Safe spaces can be valuable. The original article, OP, and myself are showing a concern at the usage of safe spaces to silence debate. We shouldn't train people to retreat when their beliefs are challenged. We shouldn't train people to hold their opinions as some strange mix of subjective absolute truth. We are all wrong sometimes, and we all need to be challenged.
  - mfringel 10y ago
    I appreciate your concern. I'm also very interested in hearing your opinion on what the role of safe spaces should be, and where they are proper.

april1stislame 10y ago

Safe spaces are children moves...