5 ms·
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 tok
by 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.
- mistermann 10y agoAre you actually interested, or looking for a way to extend your disingenuous argument?
- mfringel 10y agoI'm interested in knowing what would be a valid use of safe spaces, according to the OP. The OP has clearly explained why they think safe spaces have gone too far, but they've not said under what circumstances they believe that they are proper beyond a general acknowledgement at the beginning of the comment. In order to know what's too far, it's important to know where the line is.
- manyxcxi 10y agoI said I am for safe spaces in general, though I feel they're being abused. What I decried was trigger warnings and the failing of the adults that brought up people that think they need a trigger warning.