6 ms·

More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions of free-thought. It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone can c

by yarg 8y ago

More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions of free-thought. It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone can convey a counter argument to any given point of view, the mere presence of a point of view contrary to the modern anti-liberal left world view - even if purely rhetorical - breaches the safe space contract and justifies censuring or even punishment. It will only lead to a greater chilling effect as time goes on, and whereas great universities once taught the ability to critically consider the available information, they are rapidly reaching the point where they only serve to push people towards grossly limited and increasingly dogmatic world views. In an increasingly polarised society it terrifies me that both of the the left and the right seem to consider liberty an enemy.

esyir 8y ago
On the free speech front, I'll note that at the moment, the right seems to care more about it than the left, or at least it pays more respect to its dressings. Whether this changes once the power balance tips is a whole different story.
- pjc50 8y ago
  From where I see it the right has leapt to the defence of certain kinds of speech, but absolutely not all speech, and certainly not all kinds of employer-speech interaction. I don't think the right is really going to stand up for "you can't fire your employees for their public statements", is it? In fact, the right is more likely to be in favour of "employers should be able to fire their employees at any time for any reason", so why is the highly specific case of university professors (and no other educators) different? The right is also more likely to conflate free speech with some kind of "unchallenge privilege" - the idea that people using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad. The giveaway for this is people going on television and writing in the national newspapers to complain about how they are "silenced". If they were really silenced I wouldn't be hearing about it through those channels but through some kind of samizdat.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I think it’s important to separate what one ought to do with what the law ought to force one to do. To the extent that universities are truly privately-funded institutions (they’re not, but in my opinion should be), I think the law should have very little to say about who they hire and fire. But they are still failing in their self-proclaimed mission as cathedrals of knowledge and discourse if they engage in ideological purges. And really, anyone who makes hiring and firing decisions out of resentment and spite should really think about who they are and who they want to be.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    The right is happy to agitate for firing people because of their positions on Palestine, for instance.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    > The right is also more likely to conflate free speech with some kind of "unchallenge privilege" - the idea that people using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad. The giveaway for this is people going on television and writing in the national newspapers to complain about how they are "silenced". Are you sure you didn't you mean "left" here? Though I don't think either party has a monopoly on this behavior. Specifically the "using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad". The left seems to constantly describe opposing speech as violence/bigoted/racist/hateful and claims any criticism is "silencing" them, while asserting anyone who isn't in the intersectionality disadvantaged groups has no right to speak on those issues. For example, when Chelsea Clinton (on the left) criticized Ilhan Omar's statements about Israel, others on the left accused her of anti-muslim sentiment, and said she was responsible for the New Zealand terrorist attacks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-zealand-shooting-chelsea-clinton-blamed-attack/3184870002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-... Similarly, when Ilhan Omar made her recent comments that included describing 9/11 as "some people did something" (yes, that wasn't her main point, etc.) and was roundly criticized by the right for minimizing the terrorist attack, the left rallied 'round to defend her, saying anyone who criticized her comment was driven by anti-muslim bigotry. Rashida Tlaib even invoked the complaint about being silenced by not being defended enough - so the Democrats are silencing these prominent new minority congresswomen by not defending them enough: "They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored. To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us." Read all about it in the national press... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/ilhan-omar-democrats.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/ilhan-omar-de... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rashida-tlaib-democrats-silence-omar_n_5cb24255e4b0ffefe3b13c25 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rashida-tlaib-democrats-silen...
- addicted 8y ago
  The right has certainly not defended free speech. The same people who complain about the free speech to have the right to be paid tens of thousands of dollars to criticize weaker groups complain when football players decide to kneel during a national anthem. So free speech has little to do with it. But yes, the right has deployed free speech as an effective political weapon, while the left is all over the map.
  - yardie 8y ago
    In the left's defense you have to be all over the map to defend a position. And with the right attacking on multiple fronts it makes consensus on how to respond even harder. Take global warming and climate change. You only need one person to cast doubt to cause thousands of scientists to go into whirlwind of having to defend their data.
  - whokal 8y ago
    I am sorry I don’t quite understand the point you’re trying to make here. Who is the right that you are talking about? Complaining is part of free speech as long as it doesn’t infringe on others right to complain back as well. If they complain because they disagree, that’s a very different thing than not defending or being hypocritical about free speech. FWIW from my experience, the people I talk to respect players’ right to kneel even if they don’t agree with that action. That is the key to free speech I think —- to disagree peacefully but respect people’s right to express themselves.
RickJWagner 8y ago
"Such protectiveness is motivated less by a reasonable concern for students’ mental health and more by political ideology. The complaint of a group of conservative students who felt singled out or disrespected or uncomfortable in class would be taken far less seriously. I have been on the receiving end of faculty emails making light of just such complaints. Nor would a complaint by religious students that God and Christianity were mocked by their professor have much purchase. And I have never heard that Sanford’s “safe space” is a welcome refuge for the (generally reviled) minority of “open” Trump supporters on campus, nor have I heard of “trigger warnings” for depictions of disrespect to the American flag or harm to the unborn." It seems clear to me this professor believes the institution has a left-leaning bias. If it's true, it would have to be detrimental in the long run. The institution should be straight down the middle.
- yarg 8y ago
  The institution should be straight down the middle. I cannot agree with this; both the left and the right are motivated to manipulate world views in order to control perception of the world and the direction of social progress. The institution should cover the mainstream social perspectives and attempt to ascertain the motivations behind them. It should not, however, base its own perspective on any number of transient world views (at least not without transparent and reasoned analysis) - the middle line is not unbiased.
  - yarg 8y ago
    Or rather attempt to ascertain the validity of and motivations behind them.
batty_alex 8y ago
> More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions of free-thought. Responding to an article about Duke with this conclusion is rich. Duke is a hyper-wealthy institution that is hardly apolitical. Their neatly-manicured campus right next to impoverished portions of Durham and their decision to destroy a decades-long battle for light-rail by changing their mind last-minute doesn't strike me as an example to hold up for your argument. Duke isn't some bastion of progressivism - is what I'm trying to say here. (veered off track a little, but this hits close to home - sorry) Also, what "safe space bullshit" are you referring to? Seriously, the article is pretty loose with the details. > It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone can convey a counter argument to any given point of view We're not really getting the whole story from the article, but I'm guessing there were some lines crossed. Generally, these sorts of things don't just happen overnight. > It will only lead to a greater chilling effect ... they are rapidly reaching the point where they only serve to push people towards grossly limited and increasingly dogmatic world views. This isn't actually happening. I'm sure it seems, logically, that it would happen. But people also have their own minds and make their own decisions. Universities aren't brainwashing anyone - I promise. You dropped Occam's Razor. > In an increasingly polarised society it terrifies me that both of the the left and the right seem to consider liberty an enemy. It's not as polarized as the internet and pundits would make it seem. Talking to folks face-to-face, you can find some common ground - even if they're on the opposite end of whatever spectrum. You seem a bit anxious about this whole ordeal. The world isn't that frightening and people are pretty nice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- yostrovs 8y ago
  The people that fired a great professor, it sounds like, are not pretty nice.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- schrectacular 8y ago

by yarg 8y ago

esyir 8y ago

On the free speech front, I'll note that at the moment, the right seems to care more about it than the left, or at least it pays more respect to its dressings. Whether this changes once the power balance tips is a whole different story.

pjc50 8y ago
From where I see it the right has leapt to the defence of certain kinds of speech, but absolutely not all speech, and certainly not all kinds of employer-speech interaction. I don't think the right is really going to stand up for "you can't fire your employees for their public statements", is it? In fact, the right is more likely to be in favour of "employers should be able to fire their employees at any time for any reason", so why is the highly specific case of university professors (and no other educators) different? The right is also more likely to conflate free speech with some kind of "unchallenge privilege" - the idea that people using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad. The giveaway for this is people going on television and writing in the national newspapers to complain about how they are "silenced". If they were really silenced I wouldn't be hearing about it through those channels but through some kind of samizdat.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  I think it’s important to separate what one ought to do with what the law ought to force one to do. To the extent that universities are truly privately-funded institutions (they’re not, but in my opinion should be), I think the law should have very little to say about who they hire and fire. But they are still failing in their self-proclaimed mission as cathedrals of knowledge and discourse if they engage in ideological purges. And really, anyone who makes hiring and firing decisions out of resentment and spite should really think about who they are and who they want to be.
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  The right is happy to agitate for firing people because of their positions on Palestine, for instance.
- kbutler 8y ago
  > The right is also more likely to conflate free speech with some kind of "unchallenge privilege" - the idea that people using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad. The giveaway for this is people going on television and writing in the national newspapers to complain about how they are "silenced". Are you sure you didn't you mean "left" here? Though I don't think either party has a monopoly on this behavior. Specifically the "using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad". The left seems to constantly describe opposing speech as violence/bigoted/racist/hateful and claims any criticism is "silencing" them, while asserting anyone who isn't in the intersectionality disadvantaged groups has no right to speak on those issues. For example, when Chelsea Clinton (on the left) criticized Ilhan Omar's statements about Israel, others on the left accused her of anti-muslim sentiment, and said she was responsible for the New Zealand terrorist attacks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-zealand-shooting-chelsea-clinton-blamed-attack/3184870002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-... Similarly, when Ilhan Omar made her recent comments that included describing 9/11 as "some people did something" (yes, that wasn't her main point, etc.) and was roundly criticized by the right for minimizing the terrorist attack, the left rallied 'round to defend her, saying anyone who criticized her comment was driven by anti-muslim bigotry. Rashida Tlaib even invoked the complaint about being silenced by not being defended enough - so the Democrats are silencing these prominent new minority congresswomen by not defending them enough: "They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored. To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us." Read all about it in the national press... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/ilhan-omar-democrats.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/ilhan-omar-de... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rashida-tlaib-democrats-silence-omar_n_5cb24255e4b0ffefe3b13c25 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rashida-tlaib-democrats-silen...
addicted 8y ago
The right has certainly not defended free speech. The same people who complain about the free speech to have the right to be paid tens of thousands of dollars to criticize weaker groups complain when football players decide to kneel during a national anthem. So free speech has little to do with it. But yes, the right has deployed free speech as an effective political weapon, while the left is all over the map.
- yardie 8y ago
  In the left's defense you have to be all over the map to defend a position. And with the right attacking on multiple fronts it makes consensus on how to respond even harder. Take global warming and climate change. You only need one person to cast doubt to cause thousands of scientists to go into whirlwind of having to defend their data.
- whokal 8y ago
  I am sorry I don’t quite understand the point you’re trying to make here. Who is the right that you are talking about? Complaining is part of free speech as long as it doesn’t infringe on others right to complain back as well. If they complain because they disagree, that’s a very different thing than not defending or being hypocritical about free speech. FWIW from my experience, the people I talk to respect players’ right to kneel even if they don’t agree with that action. That is the key to free speech I think —- to disagree peacefully but respect people’s right to express themselves.

RickJWagner 8y ago

"Such protectiveness is motivated less by a reasonable concern for students’ mental health and more by political ideology. The complaint of a group of conservative students who felt singled out or disrespected or uncomfortable in class would be taken far less seriously. I have been on the receiving end of faculty emails making light of just such complaints. Nor would a complaint by religious students that God and Christianity were mocked by their professor have much purchase. And I have never heard that Sanford’s “safe space” is a welcome refuge for the (generally reviled) minority of “open” Trump supporters on campus, nor have I heard of “trigger warnings” for depictions of disrespect to the American flag or harm to the unborn." It seems clear to me this professor believes the institution has a left-leaning bias. If it's true, it would have to be detrimental in the long run. The institution should be straight down the middle.

yarg 8y ago
The institution should be straight down the middle. I cannot agree with this; both the left and the right are motivated to manipulate world views in order to control perception of the world and the direction of social progress. The institution should cover the mainstream social perspectives and attempt to ascertain the motivations behind them. It should not, however, base its own perspective on any number of transient world views (at least not without transparent and reasoned analysis) - the middle line is not unbiased.
- yarg 8y ago
  Or rather attempt to ascertain the validity of and motivations behind them.

batty_alex 8y ago

> More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions of free-thought. Responding to an article about Duke with this conclusion is rich. Duke is a hyper-wealthy institution that is hardly apolitical. Their neatly-manicured campus right next to impoverished portions of Durham and their decision to destroy a decades-long battle for light-rail by changing their mind last-minute doesn't strike me as an example to hold up for your argument. Duke isn't some bastion of progressivism - is what I'm trying to say here. (veered off track a little, but this hits close to home - sorry) Also, what "safe space bullshit" are you referring to? Seriously, the article is pretty loose with the details. > It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone can convey a counter argument to any given point of view We're not really getting the whole story from the article, but I'm guessing there were some lines crossed. Generally, these sorts of things don't just happen overnight. > It will only lead to a greater chilling effect ... they are rapidly reaching the point where they only serve to push people towards grossly limited and increasingly dogmatic world views. This isn't actually happening. I'm sure it seems, logically, that it would happen. But people also have their own minds and make their own decisions. Universities aren't brainwashing anyone - I promise. You dropped Occam's Razor. > In an increasingly polarised society it terrifies me that both of the the left and the right seem to consider liberty an enemy. It's not as polarized as the internet and pundits would make it seem. Talking to folks face-to-face, you can find some common ground - even if they're on the opposite end of whatever spectrum. You seem a bit anxious about this whole ordeal. The world isn't that frightening and people are pretty nice.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yostrovs 8y ago
The people that fired a great professor, it sounds like, are not pretty nice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
schrectacular 8y ago