5 ms·

This article is from March 2015, and shows that the writing has been on the wall for quite a while. The "safe spaces" movement is a plague, and I am sick of it

• cam_l 10y ago
  Are you offended by the idea of safe spaces? (you have no right to this) Are you offended by people acting on their ideas? (you have no right to this) Are you offended by people acting on their ideas impacting other people? (you have no right to this, umm.. wait, maybe you do) Would you prefer that people carefully segregated their ideas to certain places to avoid impacting on (or being impacted by) other people? (oh fuck, the world is complicated eh?)
• fnovd 10y ago
  I don't have a problem with safe spaces. To me, they're like office break rooms. Sometimes you just need a minute to disengage. But, if you're spending your whole day in there, I'm going to question why you show up to work in the first place.
  • kayone 10y ago
    the problem is when you try to make the entire university campus a "safe space"
    • Pigo 10y ago
      I think it sets a bad precedent, and fosters unrealistic expectations for when they leave. Most universities have counselors and psychologists you can talk to, for free, if your struggling with something. Bubbles and kittens don't help actual victims of violence.
  • CaptSpify 10y ago
    Legit question for you: Why can't "safe spaces" equate to "I just want to disengage" ? I find that when I personally want a "disengagement break", I get more relaxation in just holing myself up at home vs taking over someone else's area.
    • fnovd 10y ago
      I think that's exactly what they were supposed to be. As for "taking over someone else's area," to me that's just politics. There are ebbs and flows of power and control. Trump's victory is going to legitimize a lot of criticisms and possibly over-correct, though hopefully we will be in a position to have a reasonable understanding of what a "safe space" should be within the next decade.
      • CaptSpify 10y ago
        My understanding is that the safe-spaces movement wants dedicated rooms and even classes to be safe-spaces. That sounds like the opposite of what I described. Is this simply a disconnect from what the original intention was vs the current movement?
        • fnovd 10y ago
          What is a women's bathroom but a safe space to "air your grievances" without the meddling of the opposite gender? Start making "safe spaces" for Trump voters to talk about their candidate without being called ignorant and you'll start to see people's attitudes shift on what the sensible limitation of safe spaces should be.
  • duaneb 10y ago
    Sure. Do you think they are a right? Everyone can choose their environment to some extent.
  • Zikes 10y ago
    Safe spaces as I've seen them implemented are exclusionary and discriminatory. A women-only safe space is sexist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing men implies that men are inherently unsafe. A POC-only safe space is racist, as the implied "safety" of not allowing whites implies that whites are inherently unsafe. If anyone were to even suggest the opposite implementation, a men-only or whites-only "safe space", then the discriminatory nature is immediately apparent and everyone rallies to shut down the idea before it ever reaches implementation. Edit: Oops, I've invaded HN's safe space. Disagree with me all you like, but as we learned earlier this week it's not the votes that matter. Tell me why I'm wrong, I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinion.
    • Swizec 10y ago
      Remember, if you are a white male it is fundamentally impossible for you to experience hardship. Only people of color and women ever have problems in life. You know why there are no activist/support groups for "fresh off boat" immigrants? They're too busy actively and constructively improving their lives. Fundamentally safe spaces and related are a thing of privilege. If you have time to think about that, you're part of the privileged group. I could be wrong. Maybe I've just never come across a support group organized by and for poor people, or by and for immigrants. Are there any?
      • cmdrfred 10y ago
        The poor peoples campaign was one. They demanded an economic bill of rights. Martin Luther King was the founder of it, he believed that poverty the main issue in America at that time. A month later he was assassinated and the whole thing fell apart. "The Poor People’s Campaign was motivated by a desire for economic justice: the idea that all people should have what they need to live. King and the SCLC shifted their focus to these issues after observing that gains in civil rights had not improved the material conditions of life for many African Americans. The Poor People’s Campaign was a multiracial effort—including African-Americans, whites, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans—aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race." His assassination (by government or business interests) is the only conspiracy I subscribe to. I believe we would live in a different world if he had a few more years on this earth.
  • basch 10y ago
    Maybe they start as office break rooms, but they turn into gated communities and ghettos. The way to stop ghettos from forming, is to do the opposite of building gated communities, and instead subsidize housing in the wealthiest districts. Intellectual ghettos should be treated the same way. To prevent like minded hate spaces from forming, dont cast people you dont like, off to the side. Integrate dissent into every place you can. It will make us less partisan and more prepared to change our minds when introduced to evidence.
• aaronchall 10y ago
  In the same vein, I suggested discussing who we voted for the US Elections and why (I also mention SJW's bullying speakers off of campuses)- and my Ask HN was flagged (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12932905). I figured it would be timely and on-topic as a result: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I figured it might help us see things from each other's point of view, and thus gratifying of intellectual curiousity. Perhaps I was mistaken.
  • yareally 10y ago
    I think there's a group of users on HN, including myself that wishes politics were not on the site. One can go almost anywhere to find political discussions because the threshold to join them is so low. Sometimes tech related politics gets a pass on here, but anything else tends to lead down a path of a low signal to noise ratio for insightful site content.
    • aaronchall 10y ago
      Are you saying this post is likely to be flagged as well? Tut tut.
      • yareally 10y ago
        I only flag abusive comments, so it won't be flagged or downvoted by me at least.
    • mistermann 10y ago
      > One can go almost anywhere to find political discussions But where do you go to find intelligent political discussions. For those of you who don't frequent /r/politics, it was completely taken over by HRC's Correct The Record team, the minute the election was over the character of the sub changed completely. You have to admire how effective they were.
• st3v3r 10y ago
  You realize that these places are supposed to be breaks where people don't have to deal with others constantly saying they shouldn't exist, right? That's what the LGBTQ spaces are for, that's what the POC spaces are for, and that's what the immigrant spaces are for.
  • thequickeninger 10y ago
    you realize that these people are trying to make the entire campus into a space that people cannot disagree with them, right?
  • angersock 10y ago
    The position of "constantly saying they shouldn't exist" is an overexaggeration that only serves to make tolerating them more of a chore. It is hard to respect people that constantly treat you as an aggressor.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• maxerickson 10y ago
  My mind is open, much like a sieve. I find these discussions of tolerance fascinating. The core message of people that preach tolerance is that we shouldn't give people are hard time for views and beliefs that don't harm others, not that we should accept all views and beliefs as being equally useful. Of course the issue most comes to a head in situations like gay marriage, where a large group of people see it as causing/embracing some sort of moral decay and another group of people doesn't see any harm at all in people loving whoever they are going to love. The one group wonders why such a harmful thing must be tolerated, while the other group doesn't agree that there is any harm. People that start talking about tolerating intolerance aren't trying to have a discussion, they are asserting that their views about what is harmful and what is not harmful should have primacy.
  • Kalium 10y ago
    When "harm" is in the eye of the beholder, anything can be rationalized as harmful for political gain.
    • maxerickson 10y ago
      You really think that harm isn't in the eye of the beholder?
      • Zikes 10y ago
        https://youtu.be/RzA4dCT4X0I https://youtu.be/RzA4dCT4X0I Some people are way too eager to be victims.
        • maxerickson 10y ago
          I think you are making my point for me. Apparently the point of posting the video is that the person recording it thinks they have been harmed (I didn't watch the whole thing)? And that you disagree? That's exactly my point, you each have your own ideas of what harm is. What follows from that is that of course it will be messy to discuss. But it still stands that the core message of tolerance is that we should examine things for harm and accept those things that minimize it, not that we should accept all things mindlessly.
• PKop 10y ago
  And they want to conflate "words" with physical action; offense with violence. Thus the need for a safe space because hearing something that upsets you or you disagree with is the same as being physically assaulted. This is what you do when you are afraid of debate, afraid of being wrong and unable to defend your ideas... when you know you might lose or are losing in the arena of ideas. You criminalize differing opinions in the name of diversity, and effectively outlaw free speech. This is why Trump won.
  • Pigo 10y ago
    I do believe it played a part in this election. Watching shows like Rubin Report opened my eyes to how fractured the left has become. It also gives me hope that there's a lot of people out there who still want to have a dialogue.
    • mistermann 10y ago
      There are a lot of young people on the right willing to have a dialogue, not much on the left based on my post-election observations. The alt-right is literally giving away the playbook on what happened, in great detail, but the left continues to insist the result is because "everyone is racist". It is depressing.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • makomk 10y ago
    The difference between words and physical action only becomes apparent at the point fist connects with face, with is rather too late if you want to avoid being beaten up. This makes the mere threat of violence a very effective weapon. Look up the legal definition of "assault" sometime.
    • PKop 10y ago
      Again, you can tell me till you're blue in the face that "debate of ideas, argument, and discussion", or "having you own opinion on an issue, that isn't popular or that offends" are some how equal to inciting violence, or threatening physical assault... but I won't accept it. Ever. People are not buying this.. they are rejecting it soundly because accepting this premise gives tacit approval to regulate speech, something American culture will never accept, or should never accept in my opinion. Liberals are willingly accepting this in many places, such as college campuses for example, where it seems harder and harder to avoid the safe space mandate to follow approved groupthink. I'm not talking about banning free association for those groups that most desire the safe spaces. I'm saying.. those groups, or anyone shouldn't be allowed to deem the entire University (or other shared space) their private safe space and bar others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association. If the left doubles down with this nonsense, they will push people further away.
• threatofrain 10y ago
  Some people are particularly vulnerable, and I think there ought be safe rooms for them, but there shouldn't be safe <regions>. It doesn't matter if students wish to use a private room to do things that don't effect anyone else; that's just an extension of people enjoying privacy in <private places>. There's little difference from a 'safe' private room and a 'safe' business conference room where you expect to be undisturbed. I could imagine this being useful to those with social anxiety disorders or social deficiencies, for group grief counseling, for group addiction support, etc. These are all examples of safe spaces. What becomes insufferable is when one's safe space extends into the public space or even into my space. That's just people trying to dominate the behaviors of others. No internal turmoil justifies domination over my legitimate behaviors.