Patientplatypus was overly kind in describing this as a stretch. It hinges on an obscene misrepresentation of the intent behind safety spaces and total ignoran

Patientplatypus was overly kind in describing this as a stretch. It hinges on an obscene misrepresentation of the intent behind safety spaces and total ignorance as to what goes on inside them. Discussing safe spaces without mentioning trauma and PTSD is evidence of disinterest in investigating the topic at best and deception at worst. The purpose of content warnings and taking care to use respectful language is not about shielding participants from learning that bad things happen or that our everyday language encodes bias about the relative value of human beings. The participants whose well-being it seeks to promote already have this knowledge to a greater degree than Colin Fleming ever will. Content warnings about rape matter because almost every classroom has a few women who've been raped, very possibly by someone in the classroom. PTSD evokes strong physiological responses that are more likely to be manageable with advanced warning. Similarly, derogatory language about LGBTQ people is often delivered with the threat of violence or actual violence. I don't know a queer person who hasn't experienced some anti-queer violence. My wife worked in a LGBTQ center and had to hit the floor when someone emptied a gun into it from a car. The initial trauma is deepened by subsequent threat and fear. So what goes on in safe spaces? I'm a Boomer, so I don't spend much time in classrooms, but I do spend a lot of time in spaces like activist conferences. Let me tell you, none of the discussions I see elsewhere are as passionate or as vigorously contested. This is a benefit of safety, not a casualty of it. I see the same thing at work when I succeed in creating psychological safety for my teams: passionate discussion in engaged teams.