10 ms·

In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

222 points by jckt 12y ago

GuiA 12y ago
Is this phenomenon observable in cultures that are generally accepted as more progressively feminist than the US? (e.g. northern European countries, Germany, etc) I'm not American and I don't know much about feminism, so for me it's hard to tell the proportions with which these ideas come from US culture vs feminism (there are accounts of UK based initiatives, but there is heavy cross pollination between the US and UK student worlds).
- jpttsn 12y ago
  Anecdotally, yes.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  This sounds like a conclusion looking for evidence. What's with the interest in blaming this on feminism?
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    I think that the parent comment is merely interested if this exists in societies like Sweden where feminism as a philosophy is more entrenched. As for why he's asking the question - because activist intersectional feminism appears to be leading the trend towards these safe spaces, I guess? It was the focus of the article ("rape culture" as a concept is, as far as I can tell, a feminist one), although it segued into the racism/Islamophobia at the end.
    - tunesmith 12y ago
      You're right, I flipped some words in reading the first sentence and thought it was getting at something else. Thanks for clarifying.
  - onnoonno 12y ago
    A very good reason to generally attack/dismiss feminism IMO is that it is this morphing amoeba-like ideology. One's personal feminism is always different from 'those mainstream feminists', yet you do not see a lot of distancing from some of the very harmful feminist extremists that are around. ("NAFALT" - not all feminists are like that) It's gotten to the point where the analogue would be to label oneself a 'stalinist libertarian' (because not all stalinists are like that) or other similar nonsense.
    - tunesmith 12y ago
      I disagree just because an overloaded term is not necessarily a meaningless or low-value term - many of its definitions might be important. I do agree that overloaded terms are frustrating, though. It also doesn't help that some of the overloading of "feminism" is from its detractors.
      - onnoonno 12y ago
        A video that might be worth to watch, criticism of feminism from an eloquent woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  As the article mentions, a lot of the terms and concepts being used existed in feminism as long ago as decades before they became widespread now. I remember this stuff being made fun of in the 80s and 90s when it was considered fringe. I don't really see how anybody can deny the connection.
- yrlson 12y ago
  The US is the world leader when it comes to women's studies departments and professional feminists. They set the trend. If this is not in Europe yet, it is about to arrive.
morgante 12y ago
Unfortunately, there's a real professional risk in speaking out against this tide of censorship, so I won't say much. This is a great essay on the increasingly anti-controversy left: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/
- logn 12y ago
  From your link, I think the author nailed it. The fear is that the current leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas and tomorrow's left will be more extreme. The reality is that tomorrow's left will have opinions like the NYT writer. You can see the inverse of this on the right, too: Rand Paul has surpassed Sarah Palin; Alex Jones surpassed Glenn Beck. Edit to add: So the progression of political trends isn't linear. Liberals push for the next new idea and conservatives want to hang on to (or revive) some other value, but (hopefully) neither is going to endlessly push their agenda today until it's some authoritarian mockery of itself.
  - morgante 12y ago
    Yup! That idea gives me hope that we are not in an inexorable decline of intellectual thought. Fashions, including intellectual ones, are both faster to appear and slower lived than actual ideological shifts. I think it's telling that while political and ideological fashions fall in and out of favor, actual policies tend to progress towards effectiveness.
    - lnanek2 12y ago
      What makes you think polices get more effective? The F-35 is a laughing stock. Surely most effective wouldn't be an overbudget, past deadline, aircraft with a host of problems. Surely most effective would mean avoiding things like that with government purchases. Taxes get more complicated every year. I have a whole extra set of documents and fines to deal with because no health insurance is punished now, for example. Surely more effective would be least overhead to do taxes possible and least burden on the poor people without insurance. The goal of many politicians is to increase pork barrel spending in their state, so it isn't like they are even trying to be effective for many policies, just to try to wrest the most money and support from the others. So if you mean most effective at making deals with businesses, maybe you are correct.
KFW504 12y ago
Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not want to be a part of it
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  Perhaps that is why the word "safe" was chosen. It's a fairly odd term for what it actually is.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Why, then, isn't the "safe space" (in this case) anywhere that isn't the lecture hall holding the specific debate?
bufordsharkley 12y ago
"Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn’t use the word guts)." Amusing that the NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote, of all things.
- scintill76 12y ago
  I'm reminded of the time I elided repeated profanity from a Fahrenheit 451 passage I quoted in a high-school paper about the book. I found the profanity unnecessary and felt it sort of obscured the point, but I did not realize the irony of censoring "451" until the teacher pointed it out. Well, at least I didn't burn the parts I didn't like, I just editorialized them...
  - anon4 12y ago
    What irony? Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship.
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      Go read it.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  Guts as opposed to... balls? I'm trying to think what the replaced word would've been.
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Yes, apparently: http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/02/27/charlie-hebdo-journalist-defends-satire-free-speech-at-univ-event/ http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/02/27/charlie-hebdo-journalist... (third-to-last paragraph.)
- pervycreeper 12y ago
  > NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote Assuming that the original was "balls", it was perhaps done in ironic self-awareness, considering that the original expression would be disapproved of by feminists because it links a male-associated feature with courage, seen to be a positive character trait.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  Use porn mode in your preferred browser.
tunesmith 12y ago
It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry at people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me (an effect the producer would have had no way of knowing ahead of time). It should always be fine for an affected person to remove themselves from a situation that feels unsafe to them, but it shouldn't necessarily mean additional regulation. I am totally in support of educating people to speak sensitively in the sense of it meaning not to speak flippantly or hurtfully about charged subjects - for instance, I will still object to jokes about prison rape - but for it to progress to the point of avoiding provocative subjects entirely, that just seems like anti-progress and willful ignorance.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  > "I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me" Then I applaud you, as that is a vital skill, rarely understood. So much miscommunication happens because content is easier to follow than intent, yet understanding intent is what really lets you get to know someone.
  - blumkvist 12y ago
    Great comments, yours and the "parent's". Very eloquently put. I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and line of thinking. This forced me to rethink my communication skills and try to change my approach of conversing. I've found that people who understand those concepts can use them to their advantage and benefit immensely in all sorts of settings.
    - jnbiche 12y ago
      I agree that the GP and GGP both are great points, and I aspire to that state of mind myself (not always reaching it, but trying to). That said, it definitely bugs me when someone comes to be "looking for a debate", so that may be why people have reacted negatively. I can generally tell when someone's genuinely concerned with an issue, and when someone wants to provoke me into a debate. I prefer not to spend much time with people who do the latter. However, I recognize that we may be understanding the term "debate" differently here. To me, the emphasis in a debate is on the debating prowess of the participants. Whereas in a discussion, the emphasis is on the issue to be solved. You may well be referring to what I think of as a discussion.
DanFeldman 12y ago
I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical strategy is becoming mainstream. Relevant smbc: http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164 http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164
- eigenvector 12y ago
  The condemnatory value of the "isms" (racism, sexism, etc.) seems greatly diminished these days. Once upon a time, if you hurled "racist" at someone it was because, y'know, they actively hated and oppressed people of other races. If someone asked me if I'd hire a racist I could comfortably say no without being afraid it was a loaded question meant to see if I'd ostracize some white guy who retweeted a rap lyric 3 years ago. Nowadays it seems to mean something more along the lines of "you said something at least tangentially related to race that I didn't quite agree with".
- joeclark77 12y ago
  You used to hear American liberals saying things like "I disagree with your position, but I would defend to the death your right to express it." It was part of the creed that they thought defined them as "progressive". Funny, you don't hear that much any more.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    The thing is, I don't think there are all that many liberals out there who want to use the force of law to prevent objectionable speech; They do want to use the force of law to prevent businesses from discriminating among their customers, though, which is an important distinction. Hate black people? Sure, put up a klan poster, but you've still gotta serve 'em a drink.
    - 12y ago
eigenvector 12y ago
What is most disturbing about this trend is the concept that some arguments are unassailable, that some ideas are not up for debate and discussion. "Safe space", while an admirable concept at first glance, has been co-opted by people who just want a rhetorical nuclear option to protect weak or unfounded arguments. It quickly becomes a race to the bottom to see what is the crassest idea you can successfully firewall by accusing its opponents of oppression. Ironically, this concept meant to bring to the fore the lived experiences of individual people (not an invalid goal when discussing social science topics) is most commonly used to suppress and silence - wait for it - the lived experiences of others.
- Gifford 12y ago
  You may be confusing "isn't interested in disucssing it with you" with "isn't up for discussion at all". Maybe you bring less to the conversation than you think you do, in some cases.
littletimmy 12y ago
This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture. These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college (basically extended high school) whenever they hear something tangentially against their worldview. The assertion that a discussion of "rape culture" can be "too distressing" such as to require a trauma room is absolutely ridiculous. A part of it, I'm sure, is that the administrator needs to justify her unnecessary employment by creating work. What farce.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  I've always rolled my eyes at complaints about the "trophy generation" (Adam Carolla had a particularly brain-deadening rant about it), but this article honestly did get me wondering about how people like that would be able to cope with actual professional atmospheres after college. On the other hand, this article is an editorial that doesn't really try to quantify the problem, so maybe "people like that" aren't really a measurable population. It's probably not so much the "trauma rooms" that are the problem, as it is using them as reason to censor the "traumatic discussions". It'd be nice if there were more mechanisms in place to both teach and encourage actual reasoned discussion aka dialectic. There's too much debate out there, too much ethos and pathos crowding out logos.
  - eigenvector 12y ago
    As someone who graduated from university in the last few years and has observed the drastic and gaping difference between school and workplace environment, people adapt to their new circumstances pretty quickly. Keep in mind that 99% of the "trigger warning" generation is just following along with what is presented to them in university as unassailable orthodoxy. When they get to the workplace and are presented with another, altogether different, unassailable orthodoxy (STFU and fit in with company culture), they fall in line pretty quickly.
    - 12y ago
Negitivefrags 12y ago
The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is an unintended consequence of the internet. Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points. Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as anybody expressing an opposing view can be quickly and easily downvoted / banned. Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way?
- jckt 12y ago
  I think the Internet as it was originally designed would have had the opposite effect. I mostly browse the "old" Internet -- i.e. static pages and the like. And all I really see is a diversity of opinion. It's honestly difficult to find someone I completely agree on any given day. But the rise in "recommendation engines" (Facebook, Tumblr, etc) and even "news aggregators" (yes, the irony) may indeed impart the provincial-ising effect you mentioned. As people are automatically fed information that they have been measured to prefer, they end up grossly overestimating how widely-held their views really are.
- morgante 12y ago
  > Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way? I think you're painting too broad a brush. The problem isn't that the majority of college students think this way, it's that the majority don't care much either way and a vocal minority works hard to institute punishments for anyone who opposes them.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    I'd go so far as to say that the problem isn't these students, it's the faculty/staff enabling them.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  > Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points. This has always been my thinking around the more unusual subcultures closely tied to the Internet such as vores etc. Prior to the net, if your fetish was being eaten by a dragon, chances are it was yours and yours alone within your accessible social circles. Espousing it openly would lead (rightly or wrongly, I make no judgement, each to his own) to social ridicule at best, ostracism at worst. But with the internet, you can now find like-minded groups who will tell you that your interest in being eaten by dragons is entirely normal. People who join those communities to disagree will usually be banned or removed somehow. I've chosen an extreme example, but you'll find similar in other online subcultures - in my opinion, the smaller, the more likely the group-think.
return0 12y ago
As an advocate of controversial discourse, i find these articles particularly rile me up. I would like a "trigger warning" whenever i read about trigger warnings.
cryofan 12y ago
ironic...this site hides my comments and the NY Times does the same...yet both sites are posting this article which scolds colleges for doing exactly what they themselves do
Puts 12y ago
I don't even know why I read this. I'm so tired of people debating people. Time to go do something creative instead.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
arvinjoar 12y ago
On the same theme, Bret Easton Ellis [BEE] has been a vocal critic of what he has termed "Generation Wuss" and "Outrage Culture"[1][2]. BEE is obviously trying to be provocative, which might get some people to dismiss him out of hand, but I really think he's onto something. One has to remember that BEE is an author of transgressive fiction, and has experienced attacks based on the content he featured in his books all his career (without his attackers bothering to analyze his intent). [1] = http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview [2] = http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837 http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-w...
noonespecial 12y ago
"Nowadays, it is true, we are made so sensitive by the raving crowd of flatterers that we cry out that we are stung as soon as we meet with disapproval. When we cannot ward off the truth with any other pretext, we flee from it by ascribing it to a fierce temper, impatience, and immodesty." - Martin Luther, 1520! Maybe not such a new phenomenon?
- mercer 12y ago
  Well, either 1) things haven't changed much, or 2) history rhymes...
isthisacult2 12y ago
>>>Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material. The Church of Scientology had to create itself some safe spaces in order that its practitioners could feel comfortable learning new things in spite of the rampant counter-opinions on the subject of the mind, body and soul. Does the idea that colleges and other social institutions need a safe space, away from all the 'counter-opinions' offend you? Maybe you should stop reading right now. Unless daily protected from doing so, every safe space eventually becomes a prison. No institution is safe from authoritarian behaviour - even those who fight repression/oppression/suppression. In fact, it is a daily struggle to prevent these very human elements from impacting society - because fundamentally there is a desire in all of us, every single one of us - enlightened or otherwise - to repress those we do not agree with, suppress those we despise for whatever reason, and hate those for whom we cannot find anything to love about.
- facepalm 12y ago
  What do you mean by safe space? I think traditionally people just formed meeting groups of like minded people? But does every opinion or interest need it's own fluffy room with puppies? I think not. It certainly wouldn't be practical, especially if you want to account for possibly infinite new interests and ideas that might emerge over time - so you would need thousands or even millions of safe rooms for all variations of interests. Typically people also have a home which should be a safe space for whatever they want to do/be, and also of course their mind, in which they are free to think whatever they wish.
yardie 12y ago
Comedian, Chris Rock, no longer does campus shows for this reason [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges-conservative_n_6250308.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges...
tomjen3 12y ago
>The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies That is something you would expect to find in a young childs room. Is that really the state they are at? And also, what is wrong with a real puppy?
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  > what is wrong with a real puppy? Why do you demonize video technology so?
- cryptical 12y ago
  "Owning" a puppy is slavery.
- henriquemaia 12y ago
  I think the article's author, with that very detailed description, intended precisely to stress the huge gap between both attitudes in conflict: the child's mentality of those defending the need of a safe space on the one hand and the grown-up mentality of those organizing the debate on the other.
- jqm 12y ago
  Some people find dogs threatening... I personally don't, but I do find rooms for adults filled with play-doh, comfort blankets and rabid third wave feminists a bit threatening.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
bobcostas55 12y ago
Nietzsche has a great bit on these people. The Gay Science #359.
- defen 12y ago
  Here's a contemporary quote from Oscar Wilde that hits at the same issue, in a way that's easier for modern readers to digest: "I never came across anyone in whom the moral sense was dominant who was not heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid, and entirely lacking in the smallest sense of humanity. Moral people, as they are termed, are simple beasts."
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    So Oscar Wilde never met a genuinely kind and decent person?
pron 12y ago
That discourse is ridiculous, yet it seems like a simple case of the pendulum swinging too far. It used to be bad one way, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but only because people are still learning the adverse effects of the way things used to be. Once people learn, and feel comfortable with the new knowledge, things will correct themselves. I'm not worried. The only thing troubling here is the medicalization of the emotions experienced during an intellectual debate.
fche 12y ago
It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".
fche 12y ago
It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".
throwaway9324 12y ago
This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance. Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying. This part: This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. And this part: It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. And some people are probably downvoting the vindictiveness and prejudice you hold and make evident in this part: I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance. And maybe some are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate overall. Hope your day gets better.
  - throwaway9324 12y ago
    "This part" Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is important? "And this part" I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite the opposite. "the vindictiveness and prejudice" Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely devaluing tech. I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it also how a lot of the tech industry works. "are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate" Or maybe it's just far easier. "Hope your day gets better" My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not because I had a bad day.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jqm 12y ago
Here is my (completely unsupported) prediction... People involved in "safe spaces" or passing out fliers against "rape culture" (not rape, that's a crime and a different subject), generally, on average, after college, don't enjoy happy long term rewarding relationships, successful careers nor make a lot money nor contributions to the world. When I was in college in the early 90's I flirted briefly with the emerging "PC" movement, (many of the principals which I support in theory). I quickly distanced myself when I perceived the pervasive underlying negativity and unhappiness.
- throwaway9324 12y ago
  I wouldn't think so. Being actively involved in things in college seem to be one of the better indicators of success in those areas. I know many geeks who aren't especially successful in those areas and I don't think less of them because of it.
cauterized 12y ago
People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.
- rdlecler1 12y ago
  Most of the article was about none of this.
  - cauterized 12y ago
    Fair enough. Most of the comments are, though! ;-)
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  I think it's reasonable for a professor to give some notice to students that they're about to be exposed to something graphic. If students want to avoid reading a particular piece or going to a particular event, then that's their choice as adults. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that things that might be upsetting should be removed from one's environment.
  - cauterized 12y ago
    Context matters there, IMO. If an image that someone finds incredibly disturbing is printed at 4x8 feet and hung in the lobby of a building a student has to enter every day to get to classes, it's not unreasonable for them to ask that it be moved. If that same image is in an exhibit in a gallery of the campus museum where it can be easily avoided, it's unreasonable to ask for its removal.
joesmo 12y ago
So basically colleges and universities are shirking their duty to their students of providing them with proper education because they're afraid of lawsuits which the college will likely easily win. The whole "politically correct" culture of censorship, which this seems to be just another instantiation of, has just gone too far and too few people are willing to stand up against its censorship. There's nothing wrong with safe rooms per se until the existence of such safe rooms deprives others of their right to peaceful assembly, free association, and free speech, something that seems to be the goal of some of these organizers. Censorship is censorship and people who fall for these ploys are fools themselves while the people perpetrating these ploys are the ones who should be prevented from trampling others' rights. To put it more bluntly, if you can't deal with opposing opinions, it's your duty to not expose yourself to them, not anyone else's problem. It's despicable to try to remove others' rights because you're a cowardly child. Furthermore, if these people insist on being children, then they should have the rights of children (ie: highly reduced) and their opinions on such adult matters should be discarded (ie: we don't let children vote). I'd like to think that they could grow up mentally and stop being children, but I'm not so sure that many of these people have that capability.
MetaMonk 12y ago
OCD runs in my family, and as soon as I figured out I also had it, the way to get over it was to confront the things that "triggered" it. I've been wondering for a while if there's any similarity to not facing triggering issues in OCD and for all these people who've experienced trauma.

222 points by jckt 12y ago

GuiA 12y ago

Is this phenomenon observable in cultures that are generally accepted as more progressively feminist than the US? (e.g. northern European countries, Germany, etc) I'm not American and I don't know much about feminism, so for me it's hard to tell the proportions with which these ideas come from US culture vs feminism (there are accounts of UK based initiatives, but there is heavy cross pollination between the US and UK student worlds).

jpttsn 12y ago
Anecdotally, yes.
tunesmith 12y ago
This sounds like a conclusion looking for evidence. What's with the interest in blaming this on feminism?
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  I think that the parent comment is merely interested if this exists in societies like Sweden where feminism as a philosophy is more entrenched. As for why he's asking the question - because activist intersectional feminism appears to be leading the trend towards these safe spaces, I guess? It was the focus of the article ("rape culture" as a concept is, as far as I can tell, a feminist one), although it segued into the racism/Islamophobia at the end.
  - tunesmith 12y ago
    You're right, I flipped some words in reading the first sentence and thought it was getting at something else. Thanks for clarifying.
- onnoonno 12y ago
  A very good reason to generally attack/dismiss feminism IMO is that it is this morphing amoeba-like ideology. One's personal feminism is always different from 'those mainstream feminists', yet you do not see a lot of distancing from some of the very harmful feminist extremists that are around. ("NAFALT" - not all feminists are like that) It's gotten to the point where the analogue would be to label oneself a 'stalinist libertarian' (because not all stalinists are like that) or other similar nonsense.
  - tunesmith 12y ago
    I disagree just because an overloaded term is not necessarily a meaningless or low-value term - many of its definitions might be important. I do agree that overloaded terms are frustrating, though. It also doesn't help that some of the overloading of "feminism" is from its detractors.
    - onnoonno 12y ago
      A video that might be worth to watch, criticism of feminism from an eloquent woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
As the article mentions, a lot of the terms and concepts being used existed in feminism as long ago as decades before they became widespread now. I remember this stuff being made fun of in the 80s and 90s when it was considered fringe. I don't really see how anybody can deny the connection.
yrlson 12y ago
The US is the world leader when it comes to women's studies departments and professional feminists. They set the trend. If this is not in Europe yet, it is about to arrive.

morgante 12y ago

Unfortunately, there's a real professional risk in speaking out against this tide of censorship, so I won't say much. This is a great essay on the increasingly anti-controversy left: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

logn 12y ago
From your link, I think the author nailed it. The fear is that the current leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas and tomorrow's left will be more extreme. The reality is that tomorrow's left will have opinions like the NYT writer. You can see the inverse of this on the right, too: Rand Paul has surpassed Sarah Palin; Alex Jones surpassed Glenn Beck. Edit to add: So the progression of political trends isn't linear. Liberals push for the next new idea and conservatives want to hang on to (or revive) some other value, but (hopefully) neither is going to endlessly push their agenda today until it's some authoritarian mockery of itself.
- morgante 12y ago
  Yup! That idea gives me hope that we are not in an inexorable decline of intellectual thought. Fashions, including intellectual ones, are both faster to appear and slower lived than actual ideological shifts. I think it's telling that while political and ideological fashions fall in and out of favor, actual policies tend to progress towards effectiveness.
  - lnanek2 12y ago
    What makes you think polices get more effective? The F-35 is a laughing stock. Surely most effective wouldn't be an overbudget, past deadline, aircraft with a host of problems. Surely most effective would mean avoiding things like that with government purchases. Taxes get more complicated every year. I have a whole extra set of documents and fines to deal with because no health insurance is punished now, for example. Surely more effective would be least overhead to do taxes possible and least burden on the poor people without insurance. The goal of many politicians is to increase pork barrel spending in their state, so it isn't like they are even trying to be effective for many policies, just to try to wrest the most money and support from the others. So if you mean most effective at making deals with businesses, maybe you are correct.

KFW504 12y ago

Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not want to be a part of it

BurningFrog 12y ago
Perhaps that is why the word "safe" was chosen. It's a fairly odd term for what it actually is.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Why, then, isn't the "safe space" (in this case) anywhere that isn't the lecture hall holding the specific debate?

bufordsharkley 12y ago

"Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn’t use the word guts)." Amusing that the NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote, of all things.

scintill76 12y ago
I'm reminded of the time I elided repeated profanity from a Fahrenheit 451 passage I quoted in a high-school paper about the book. I found the profanity unnecessary and felt it sort of obscured the point, but I did not realize the irony of censoring "451" until the teacher pointed it out. Well, at least I didn't burn the parts I didn't like, I just editorialized them...
- anon4 12y ago
  What irony? Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship.
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    Go read it.
EdwardDiego 12y ago
Guts as opposed to... balls? I'm trying to think what the replaced word would've been.
- scintill76 12y ago
  Yes, apparently: http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/02/27/charlie-hebdo-journalist-defends-satire-free-speech-at-univ-event/ http://chicagomaroon.com/2015/02/27/charlie-hebdo-journalist... (third-to-last paragraph.)
pervycreeper 12y ago
> NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote Assuming that the original was "balls", it was perhaps done in ironic self-awareness, considering that the original expression would be disapproved of by feminists because it links a male-associated feature with courage, seen to be a positive character trait.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

EdwardDiego 12y ago
Use porn mode in your preferred browser.

tunesmith 12y ago

It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry at people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me (an effect the producer would have had no way of knowing ahead of time). It should always be fine for an affected person to remove themselves from a situation that feels unsafe to them, but it shouldn't necessarily mean additional regulation. I am totally in support of educating people to speak sensitively in the sense of it meaning not to speak flippantly or hurtfully about charged subjects - for instance, I will still object to jokes about prison rape - but for it to progress to the point of avoiding provocative subjects entirely, that just seems like anti-progress and willful ignorance.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
> "I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me" Then I applaud you, as that is a vital skill, rarely understood. So much miscommunication happens because content is easier to follow than intent, yet understanding intent is what really lets you get to know someone.
- blumkvist 12y ago
  Great comments, yours and the "parent's". Very eloquently put. I have had problems with people thinking I'm arguing or attacking their ideas, when I am only looking for a debate and a more thorough view of their ideas and line of thinking. This forced me to rethink my communication skills and try to change my approach of conversing. I've found that people who understand those concepts can use them to their advantage and benefit immensely in all sorts of settings.
  - jnbiche 12y ago
    I agree that the GP and GGP both are great points, and I aspire to that state of mind myself (not always reaching it, but trying to). That said, it definitely bugs me when someone comes to be "looking for a debate", so that may be why people have reacted negatively. I can generally tell when someone's genuinely concerned with an issue, and when someone wants to provoke me into a debate. I prefer not to spend much time with people who do the latter. However, I recognize that we may be understanding the term "debate" differently here. To me, the emphasis in a debate is on the debating prowess of the participants. Whereas in a discussion, the emphasis is on the issue to be solved. You may well be referring to what I think of as a discussion.

DanFeldman 12y ago

I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical strategy is becoming mainstream. Relevant smbc: http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164 http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164

eigenvector 12y ago
The condemnatory value of the "isms" (racism, sexism, etc.) seems greatly diminished these days. Once upon a time, if you hurled "racist" at someone it was because, y'know, they actively hated and oppressed people of other races. If someone asked me if I'd hire a racist I could comfortably say no without being afraid it was a loaded question meant to see if I'd ostracize some white guy who retweeted a rap lyric 3 years ago. Nowadays it seems to mean something more along the lines of "you said something at least tangentially related to race that I didn't quite agree with".
joeclark77 12y ago
You used to hear American liberals saying things like "I disagree with your position, but I would defend to the death your right to express it." It was part of the creed that they thought defined them as "progressive". Funny, you don't hear that much any more.
- Frondo 12y ago
  The thing is, I don't think there are all that many liberals out there who want to use the force of law to prevent objectionable speech; They do want to use the force of law to prevent businesses from discriminating among their customers, though, which is an important distinction. Hate black people? Sure, put up a klan poster, but you've still gotta serve 'em a drink.
  - 12y ago

eigenvector 12y ago

What is most disturbing about this trend is the concept that some arguments are unassailable, that some ideas are not up for debate and discussion. "Safe space", while an admirable concept at first glance, has been co-opted by people who just want a rhetorical nuclear option to protect weak or unfounded arguments. It quickly becomes a race to the bottom to see what is the crassest idea you can successfully firewall by accusing its opponents of oppression. Ironically, this concept meant to bring to the fore the lived experiences of individual people (not an invalid goal when discussing social science topics) is most commonly used to suppress and silence - wait for it - the lived experiences of others.

Gifford 12y ago
You may be confusing "isn't interested in disucssing it with you" with "isn't up for discussion at all". Maybe you bring less to the conversation than you think you do, in some cases.

littletimmy 12y ago

This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture. These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college (basically extended high school) whenever they hear something tangentially against their worldview. The assertion that a discussion of "rape culture" can be "too distressing" such as to require a trauma room is absolutely ridiculous. A part of it, I'm sure, is that the administrator needs to justify her unnecessary employment by creating work. What farce.

tunesmith 12y ago
I've always rolled my eyes at complaints about the "trophy generation" (Adam Carolla had a particularly brain-deadening rant about it), but this article honestly did get me wondering about how people like that would be able to cope with actual professional atmospheres after college. On the other hand, this article is an editorial that doesn't really try to quantify the problem, so maybe "people like that" aren't really a measurable population. It's probably not so much the "trauma rooms" that are the problem, as it is using them as reason to censor the "traumatic discussions". It'd be nice if there were more mechanisms in place to both teach and encourage actual reasoned discussion aka dialectic. There's too much debate out there, too much ethos and pathos crowding out logos.
- eigenvector 12y ago
  As someone who graduated from university in the last few years and has observed the drastic and gaping difference between school and workplace environment, people adapt to their new circumstances pretty quickly. Keep in mind that 99% of the "trigger warning" generation is just following along with what is presented to them in university as unassailable orthodoxy. When they get to the workplace and are presented with another, altogether different, unassailable orthodoxy (STFU and fit in with company culture), they fall in line pretty quickly.
  - 12y ago

Negitivefrags 12y ago

The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is an unintended consequence of the internet. Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points. Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as anybody expressing an opposing view can be quickly and easily downvoted / banned. Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way?

jckt 12y ago
I think the Internet as it was originally designed would have had the opposite effect. I mostly browse the "old" Internet -- i.e. static pages and the like. And all I really see is a diversity of opinion. It's honestly difficult to find someone I completely agree on any given day. But the rise in "recommendation engines" (Facebook, Tumblr, etc) and even "news aggregators" (yes, the irony) may indeed impart the provincial-ising effect you mentioned. As people are automatically fed information that they have been measured to prefer, they end up grossly overestimating how widely-held their views really are.
morgante 12y ago
> Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way? I think you're painting too broad a brush. The problem isn't that the majority of college students think this way, it's that the majority don't care much either way and a vocal minority works hard to institute punishments for anyone who opposes them.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  I'd go so far as to say that the problem isn't these students, it's the faculty/staff enabling them.
EdwardDiego 12y ago
> Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points. This has always been my thinking around the more unusual subcultures closely tied to the Internet such as vores etc. Prior to the net, if your fetish was being eaten by a dragon, chances are it was yours and yours alone within your accessible social circles. Espousing it openly would lead (rightly or wrongly, I make no judgement, each to his own) to social ridicule at best, ostracism at worst. But with the internet, you can now find like-minded groups who will tell you that your interest in being eaten by dragons is entirely normal. People who join those communities to disagree will usually be banned or removed somehow. I've chosen an extreme example, but you'll find similar in other online subcultures - in my opinion, the smaller, the more likely the group-think.

return0 12y ago

As an advocate of controversial discourse, i find these articles particularly rile me up. I would like a "trigger warning" whenever i read about trigger warnings.

cryofan 12y ago

ironic...this site hides my comments and the NY Times does the same...yet both sites are posting this article which scolds colleges for doing exactly what they themselves do

Puts 12y ago

I don't even know why I read this. I'm so tired of people debating people. Time to go do something creative instead.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

arvinjoar 12y ago

On the same theme, Bret Easton Ellis [BEE] has been a vocal critic of what he has termed "Generation Wuss" and "Outrage Culture"[1][2]. BEE is obviously trying to be provocative, which might get some people to dismiss him out of hand, but I really think he's onto something. One has to remember that BEE is an author of transgressive fiction, and has experienced attacks based on the content he featured in his books all his career (without his attackers bothering to analyze his intent). [1] = http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview [2] = http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837 http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-w...

noonespecial 12y ago

"Nowadays, it is true, we are made so sensitive by the raving crowd of flatterers that we cry out that we are stung as soon as we meet with disapproval. When we cannot ward off the truth with any other pretext, we flee from it by ascribing it to a fierce temper, impatience, and immodesty." - Martin Luther, 1520! Maybe not such a new phenomenon?

mercer 12y ago
Well, either 1) things haven't changed much, or 2) history rhymes...

isthisacult2 12y ago

>>>Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material. The Church of Scientology had to create itself some safe spaces in order that its practitioners could feel comfortable learning new things in spite of the rampant counter-opinions on the subject of the mind, body and soul. Does the idea that colleges and other social institutions need a safe space, away from all the 'counter-opinions' offend you? Maybe you should stop reading right now. Unless daily protected from doing so, every safe space eventually becomes a prison. No institution is safe from authoritarian behaviour - even those who fight repression/oppression/suppression. In fact, it is a daily struggle to prevent these very human elements from impacting society - because fundamentally there is a desire in all of us, every single one of us - enlightened or otherwise - to repress those we do not agree with, suppress those we despise for whatever reason, and hate those for whom we cannot find anything to love about.

facepalm 12y ago
What do you mean by safe space? I think traditionally people just formed meeting groups of like minded people? But does every opinion or interest need it's own fluffy room with puppies? I think not. It certainly wouldn't be practical, especially if you want to account for possibly infinite new interests and ideas that might emerge over time - so you would need thousands or even millions of safe rooms for all variations of interests. Typically people also have a home which should be a safe space for whatever they want to do/be, and also of course their mind, in which they are free to think whatever they wish.

yardie 12y ago

Comedian, Chris Rock, no longer does campus shows for this reason [1]. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges-conservative_n_6250308.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges...

tomjen3 12y ago

>The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies That is something you would expect to find in a young childs room. Is that really the state they are at? And also, what is wrong with a real puppy?

mgkimsal 12y ago
> what is wrong with a real puppy? Why do you demonize video technology so?
cryptical 12y ago
"Owning" a puppy is slavery.
henriquemaia 12y ago
I think the article's author, with that very detailed description, intended precisely to stress the huge gap between both attitudes in conflict: the child's mentality of those defending the need of a safe space on the one hand and the grown-up mentality of those organizing the debate on the other.
jqm 12y ago
Some people find dogs threatening... I personally don't, but I do find rooms for adults filled with play-doh, comfort blankets and rabid third wave feminists a bit threatening.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

bobcostas55 12y ago

Nietzsche has a great bit on these people. The Gay Science #359.

defen 12y ago
Here's a contemporary quote from Oscar Wilde that hits at the same issue, in a way that's easier for modern readers to digest: "I never came across anyone in whom the moral sense was dominant who was not heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid, and entirely lacking in the smallest sense of humanity. Moral people, as they are termed, are simple beasts."
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  So Oscar Wilde never met a genuinely kind and decent person?

pron 12y ago

That discourse is ridiculous, yet it seems like a simple case of the pendulum swinging too far. It used to be bad one way, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but only because people are still learning the adverse effects of the way things used to be. Once people learn, and feel comfortable with the new knowledge, things will correct themselves. I'm not worried. The only thing troubling here is the medicalization of the emotions experienced during an intellectual debate.

fche 12y ago

It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".

fche 12y ago

It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".

throwaway9324 12y ago

This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance. Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.

WalterSear 12y ago
Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying. This part: This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. And this part: It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject. And some people are probably downvoting the vindictiveness and prejudice you hold and make evident in this part: I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance. And maybe some are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate overall. Hope your day gets better.
- throwaway9324 12y ago
  "This part" Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is important? "And this part" I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite the opposite. "the vindictiveness and prejudice" Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely devaluing tech. I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it also how a lot of the tech industry works. "are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate" Or maybe it's just far easier. "Hope your day gets better" My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not because I had a bad day.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jqm 12y ago

Here is my (completely unsupported) prediction... People involved in "safe spaces" or passing out fliers against "rape culture" (not rape, that's a crime and a different subject), generally, on average, after college, don't enjoy happy long term rewarding relationships, successful careers nor make a lot money nor contributions to the world. When I was in college in the early 90's I flirted briefly with the emerging "PC" movement, (many of the principals which I support in theory). I quickly distanced myself when I perceived the pervasive underlying negativity and unhappiness.

throwaway9324 12y ago
I wouldn't think so. Being actively involved in things in college seem to be one of the better indicators of success in those areas. I know many geeks who aren't especially successful in those areas and I don't think less of them because of it.

cauterized 12y ago

People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.

rdlecler1 12y ago
Most of the article was about none of this.
- cauterized 12y ago
  Fair enough. Most of the comments are, though! ;-)
GabrielF00 12y ago
I think it's reasonable for a professor to give some notice to students that they're about to be exposed to something graphic. If students want to avoid reading a particular piece or going to a particular event, then that's their choice as adults. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that things that might be upsetting should be removed from one's environment.
- cauterized 12y ago
  Context matters there, IMO. If an image that someone finds incredibly disturbing is printed at 4x8 feet and hung in the lobby of a building a student has to enter every day to get to classes, it's not unreasonable for them to ask that it be moved. If that same image is in an exhibit in a gallery of the campus museum where it can be easily avoided, it's unreasonable to ask for its removal.

joesmo 12y ago

So basically colleges and universities are shirking their duty to their students of providing them with proper education because they're afraid of lawsuits which the college will likely easily win. The whole "politically correct" culture of censorship, which this seems to be just another instantiation of, has just gone too far and too few people are willing to stand up against its censorship. There's nothing wrong with safe rooms per se until the existence of such safe rooms deprives others of their right to peaceful assembly, free association, and free speech, something that seems to be the goal of some of these organizers. Censorship is censorship and people who fall for these ploys are fools themselves while the people perpetrating these ploys are the ones who should be prevented from trampling others' rights. To put it more bluntly, if you can't deal with opposing opinions, it's your duty to not expose yourself to them, not anyone else's problem. It's despicable to try to remove others' rights because you're a cowardly child. Furthermore, if these people insist on being children, then they should have the rights of children (ie: highly reduced) and their opinions on such adult matters should be discarded (ie: we don't let children vote). I'd like to think that they could grow up mentally and stop being children, but I'm not so sure that many of these people have that capability.

MetaMonk 12y ago

OCD runs in my family, and as soon as I figured out I also had it, the way to get over it was to confront the things that "triggered" it. I've been wondering for a while if there's any similarity to not facing triggering issues in OCD and for all these people who've experienced trauma.