6 ms·

Put this way, it really makes me think you don't like safe spaces because they hinder your ability to hurt transgender people. It always seem that the only peo

Put this way, it really makes me think you don't like safe spaces because they hinder your ability to hurt transgender people. It always seem that the only people complaining about systems designed to respect others is the people that are doing the dis-respecting, haven't seen much proof of the contrary so far.

hellomyguys 7y ago
Safe spaces is a phrase people use when they don't want to call it these environments for what they actually are, which are spaces for vulnerable members of society to have a place to discuss issues that are relevant to them, without having the already dominant voices in society interjecting, usually in a disrespectful manner.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That is not at all the definition used in the article which is the point of the OP's comment. If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
  - hellomyguys 7y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding who these spaces are for and what purposes they serve. Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? And since when are all private clubs bad?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default. > "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?" No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all. > "And since when are all private clubs bad?" Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.
      - hellomyguys 7y ago
        > > What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. The quote literally says difficult subjects (read conversations) can be had within this space. Obviously we have different interpretations and my comment is adding my own perspective to it.
        manigandham 7y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition of space space in the article is only limited to discussion, not identity or comfort. You claim that's not what they actually are, so you are agreeing with the OP then in pointing out how the article uses a different definition than the common usage in reality.
        hellomyguys 7y ago
        You’re conflating several distinct points into one. By expanding on how I see the term safe space being used doesn’t mean I disagree with the article and therefore agree with the OP. I don’t think that’s that hard to understand. I don’t really find it productive to continue this discussion.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        manigandham 7y ago
        You literally disagree with the article (and agree with the op) on the definition of a safe space.
dctoedt 7y ago
Are you assuming general agreement to an expansive definition of what it means to "hurt" or "disrespect" someone?
ItsMattyG 7y ago
The problem is of course when legitimate facts or opinions hurt others, it has the side effect of silencing others and creating a false sense of consensus (sometimes, literally, a false sense of scientific consensus) and debating the actual merit of different policies. The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"
- tptacek 7y ago
  The reason this isn't a devastating rhetorical blow is that everyone from scientists to basement-dwelling bigots believes they have "legitimate facts" on their side. People believe all sorts of random things, and some of those things are genuinely harmful. I'm not saying I know where the line needs to be drawn, but there clearly is a line somewhere; "drink bleach to cure diseases" seems like a solid (and real!) example.
  - ItsMattyG 7y ago
    I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this? Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      No. Rather, I'm saying two other things. First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question. Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing. For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me. All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
maxcan 7y ago
If hearing the opinion of someone you vehemently disagree with, in this case the appropriateness of sexual affirmation surgery (or whatever its called these days), hurts you are not mature enough for institutions of higher learning, or quite frankly, to constructively participate in democratic society. As a Jew, hearing the words of neo-nazis absolutely disgusts me to my core but it does not "hurt" me. If words hurt you, that is your fault, not the words' fault.
- camel_Snake 7y ago
  As a fellow Jew, I hope you'd be just as tolerant of these neo nazis coming to your schul and calling the Holocaust a hoax. If not, it seems like you need a safe space as much as the more disenfranchised minority groups.
  - maxcan 7y ago
    On the contrary, I'd hate it. But at no point would I feel that their words were violating my safety.
manigandham 7y ago
You seem to be taking an example and making it personal. Let's avoid that. The OP is merely pointing out how so-called "safe spaces" today are just echo chambers. If you consider topics that you disagree with as uncomfortable, or even harmful, and exclude them from discussion, then what exactly is the difficult non-judgemental conversation to be had in that space?

hellomyguys 7y ago

Safe spaces is a phrase people use when they don't want to call it these environments for what they actually are, which are spaces for vulnerable members of society to have a place to discuss issues that are relevant to them, without having the already dominant voices in society interjecting, usually in a disrespectful manner.

manigandham 7y ago
That is not at all the definition used in the article which is the point of the OP's comment. If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
- hellomyguys 7y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding who these spaces are for and what purposes they serve. Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? And since when are all private clubs bad?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default. > "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?" No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all. > "And since when are all private clubs bad?" Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.
    - hellomyguys 7y ago
      > > What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. The quote literally says difficult subjects (read conversations) can be had within this space. Obviously we have different interpretations and my comment is adding my own perspective to it.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition of space space in the article is only limited to discussion, not identity or comfort. You claim that's not what they actually are, so you are agreeing with the OP then in pointing out how the article uses a different definition than the common usage in reality.
        hellomyguys 7y ago
        You’re conflating several distinct points into one. By expanding on how I see the term safe space being used doesn’t mean I disagree with the article and therefore agree with the OP. I don’t think that’s that hard to understand. I don’t really find it productive to continue this discussion.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        manigandham 7y ago
        You literally disagree with the article (and agree with the op) on the definition of a safe space.

dctoedt 7y ago

Are you assuming general agreement to an expansive definition of what it means to "hurt" or "disrespect" someone?

ItsMattyG 7y ago

The problem is of course when legitimate facts or opinions hurt others, it has the side effect of silencing others and creating a false sense of consensus (sometimes, literally, a false sense of scientific consensus) and debating the actual merit of different policies. The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"

tptacek 7y ago
The reason this isn't a devastating rhetorical blow is that everyone from scientists to basement-dwelling bigots believes they have "legitimate facts" on their side. People believe all sorts of random things, and some of those things are genuinely harmful. I'm not saying I know where the line needs to be drawn, but there clearly is a line somewhere; "drink bleach to cure diseases" seems like a solid (and real!) example.
- ItsMattyG 7y ago
  I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this? Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    No. Rather, I'm saying two other things. First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question. Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing. For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me. All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.

maxcan 7y ago

If hearing the opinion of someone you vehemently disagree with, in this case the appropriateness of sexual affirmation surgery (or whatever its called these days), hurts you are not mature enough for institutions of higher learning, or quite frankly, to constructively participate in democratic society. As a Jew, hearing the words of neo-nazis absolutely disgusts me to my core but it does not "hurt" me. If words hurt you, that is your fault, not the words' fault.

camel_Snake 7y ago
As a fellow Jew, I hope you'd be just as tolerant of these neo nazis coming to your schul and calling the Holocaust a hoax. If not, it seems like you need a safe space as much as the more disenfranchised minority groups.
- maxcan 7y ago
  On the contrary, I'd hate it. But at no point would I feel that their words were violating my safety.

manigandham 7y ago

You seem to be taking an example and making it personal. Let's avoid that. The OP is merely pointing out how so-called "safe spaces" today are just echo chambers. If you consider topics that you disagree with as uncomfortable, or even harmful, and exclude them from discussion, then what exactly is the difficult non-judgemental conversation to be had in that space?