8 ms·

“Safe Spaces” and the Mote in America's Eye

104 points by aptwebapps 11y ago

tomlock 11y ago
I'm not really sure how the author is making the link between post 9/11 safety versus liberty issues and safe spaces. It is really quite confusing because the people that exist in these spaces are generally quite vehemently opposed to those same types of interventions. They see themselves as existing in a system which has worked against them for years, and they are suspicious of it. They see legislation as typically working against them, and they are working to fight it. Personally, I support the right for safe spaces to exist, and for people to be angry when they are offended. I am also personally opposed to safe spaces. I'm queer and they made me feel like I wasn't the right type of queer. I view them as another reinforcement of utterly meaningless hierarchies. In this case though, the author's view of the people in those spaces seems to be that they are linked with a movement that they generally reject. The author doesn't have a very nuanced view of those people. I'd venture that they don't know those spaces very well. edit: Its also quite confusing since safe spaces have a history that starts long before 9/11.
- angersock 11y ago
  The link is basically that a lot of the people arguing for these safe spaces are the same ones that will petition, slander, or decry the folks on the conservative side of things. You don't get to, for example, run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter and still claim that you aren't aligned, at least in principal and methods, with the enemies of liberty--no matter how worthy your cause otherwise. The other issue is that, culturally speaking, the mindset of those critical of microagressions and identity politics and other important issues also tends to dismiss or antagonize folks that are very much supportive of liberty or free speech or the right to bear arms. This ends up in a lot of sapping of resources on both sides as they fight over things as trivial as whether or not you can get married in a church. It's actually very convenient to the folks in charge, if you want to be cynical.
  - strangecasts 11y ago
    run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter What are you referring to here?
    - angersock 11y ago
      A good example of this: https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker I'd rather not talk about that subject too much, because it's such a clusterfuck. That said, there's an example for you. EDIT: A similar setup, for the curious. http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2 http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2
      - strangecasts 11y ago
        That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
        angersock 11y ago
        So, the tools in question (as I understand their use, and I am happy to reconsider my position if my understanding is incorrect!) basically create blocklists based on the edges of known "bad actors" in the Twitter social graph. These users are effectively hidden unless you are already following them for some reason (Block Bot does this, as memory serves). Whoever is subscribed has their potential feed manipulated by...some group? For reasons? It's certainly easier than manually removing trolls, but imagine finding yourself on the wrong end of one of these bots or a more aggressive descendant, just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. The entire point of these things is to make a safe space--where safe is defined as not merely keeping out dissenting thought but indeed making it appear as though it never existed, very much like a memoryhole. On some places (like HN or Something Awful or whatever) you'll see a post downvoted or annotated with "User was banned for this post. Reason: User is a mansplaining shithead". We're a bit down the rabbit hole here. I'm curious if there are such bots created by the folks on the other side of the issue, or intended for use by people on the other side of the aisle. I suspect not, but I simply haven't checked yet.
- aptwebapps 11y ago
  Yes, there's some unfortunate ambiguity in his use of the term. If you aren't familiar with his stuff, follow the link with the text 'entitled to a "safe space"'[0] to see what he's talking about. And I don't think he objects to people being angry when they're offended - that is illogical at best. He objects to the sort of behavior he links to where the college student in question is trying to get the school to either pull funding for the school newspaper or appointment 'adult supervision' for writing a pretty innocuous complaint about other's behavior [1] (warning: it's a bit opaque). 0. http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-diego/ http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-di... 1. http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-campus-politics/ http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-camp...
  - tomlock 11y ago
    Unfortunately for the people that use the term I'm pretty sure that the ambiguity does not exist. It is exceptionally easy for me to read this article as a direct criticism of all safe spaces, while the author draws a link that seems very vague and actually counter to what I've experienced in those spaces. I'm all for criticizing these spaces but the article draws a very bewildering link between a misunderstanding of liberty with the people that support them. That's a tenuous connection, at best. The article confuses me and it doesn't feel like the author has a familiarity with the typical politics of people that frequent safe spaces.
    - aptwebapps 11y ago
      The disconnect you're referring to is precisely due to his misuse of the term. Leave the term out and it will make sense.
      - tomlock 11y ago
        Sincerely: Thank you for engaging with me on this. Given what you've said, I really have two options with this article: 1) I can read it as fundamentally misreading the politics of people who use safe spaces on campus 2) I can read it as misunderstanding the generally accepted meaning of the term "safe space" In both cases, my conclusion is that the author does not have a high level of understanding of the subject matter. I hope this isn't taken as a refutation of criticism broadly, as I've attempted to make clear.
- zerocrates 11y ago
  I think the complaint is not about safe spaces as something that people can opt into if they prefer, but the idea that an entire university should be such a "safe space." The bulk of the specific complaints are about things like free speech zones, censorship, or banning, disinviting, or attacking speakers. These are all basically methods to provide intellectual "safety" to everybody regardless of whether they've asked for it, and I don't think they're really comparable with more limited (what I would think of as "traditional") safe spaces. Edit: The Judith Shulevitz New York Times opinion piece linked early on (which made the rounds a few weeks ago) is clearly an inspiration of this post, and Shulevitz does a much better job of actually engaging with the "normal" definition of a safe space, its earlier history, and the expansion the article decries. "In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea. But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer."
  - tomlock 11y ago
    I'm finding Judith's article much better written. Looking at the response the students had to the "dangerous space" flier, seems to typify free speech. Why shouldn't they ask the university to condemn the flier? But the article is very slippery-slope, and mostly doesn't criticize safe spaces directly, just what the author sees as their side effects.
    - zerocrates 11y ago
      I'd agree that both Shulevitz's piece and this one are flawed. They both offer some interesting anecdotes but don't do a great job of criticism (or even, you could argue, identifying what's being criticized). Instead, both are to some extent willing to leave things at "look at the what the wacky Millenials (substitute "leftists", "feminists", "statists" as needed) are up to!" Part of the problem, I suspect, is the messy intersection with politics and identity in this area. It's tough to come across criticism that doesn't devolve into political posturing, and even thoughtful discussion is easily dismissed as it often comes from "the other side."
late2part 11y ago
We should have taught them not to give up essential liberty for a little safety. Instead, we taught them that the government needs the power to send flying robots to kill anyone on the face of the earth without review and without telling us why. Ken is a great writer and a great American. I'm grateful to him for pointing out these problems with great style.
parfe 11y ago
Very brave of Ken to call out women, black people, and the LGBT community. Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those groups are exposed to ideas they don't like all the time, every day, via every avenue of media. A safe space is a moment of solace to discuss issues specific groups are particularly affected by without being berated by the 18 year old generic white male libertarian who seems so keen on letting the minority groups how they should be behaving.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those groups are exposed to ideas they don't like all the time, every day, via every avenue of media. It seems you and I live in a different country.
  - bandrami 11y ago
    > It seems you and I live in a different country. Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. "Safe spaces" give straight white men the slightest taste of what the rest of the world is like for people who aren't that trifecta. And, predictably, we straight white men freak the hell out when exposed to that...
    - candu 11y ago
      Personally, I've always been skeptical of the "straight white men" trope. Yes, each of these specifiers confer a statistical advantage, but this is such a large demographic group (even within the US) that it seems bizarre to treat it as homogenous in any way. (Then again, perhaps I'm just allergic to marketing-speak, and prefer to think of people as such.)
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. No it isn't. Not only is the media apparatus in full-throated support of "women, black people, and the LGBT community", the last people on the planet who should need safe spaces are the people who demand them: wealthy and the UMC white women at places like Vassar and Oberlin. Truly disadvantaged people can't afford to be that weak.
IvanDenisovich 11y ago
Don't know much about the rest of the US, but debates in my school are usually won by whoever feels hurt and marginalized the most. The latest Israel-Divestment debate revolved around what would be least offensive to Jews/Israelis/Palestinians/Muslims, with Black and Latino students' feelings thrown in for good measure. It was all about who self-victimizes the hardest, objective reality in the middle east never came into play. Surprisingly enough, most Muslim/Jewish/Black/Latino students went on peacefully with their life, totally oblivious to how badly their feelings were hurt during that debate. Thank god the school paper was there to tell them.
- formulaT 11y ago
  The debate is also settled this way in real politics, it's just that outside some universities, Jewish feelings win. EDIT: for downvoters: why is it ok to point out diversity politics in universities and not in US politics?
  - IvanDenisovich 11y ago
    hi formulaT. I was just giving the Israel-Palestinian debate as one example of a bigger issue. No need to hijack the conversation in that direction.
    - formulaT 11y ago
      I just happen to think it's a bad example because political correctness pervades all of politics, but (unlike say White vs Black or Male vs Female), for the Israel-Palestine issue only in the far left would does political correctness favor the Palestinians, while this is reversed in mainstream US politics. So I think it's important to point out that how this example differs from most forms of political correctness.
- detcader 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence that any of this is actually the case? In my experience it is Zionist feelings verses actual facts that BDS activists present about Israel's expansion. Your anecdotes against mine, I suppose.
douche 11y ago
The idea that women are a minority group on college campuses is laughable. How can you be marginalized when you control public opinion and make up 55-75% of students?
- theVirginian 11y ago
  Hey! Get those facts out of here!
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  You can be marginalized if you only make up a small percentage of the executive and administrative staff. Students don't have significant power on most university campuses...administrators and wealthy alumni tend to hold the reigns. And, at some universities, the football team administrators hold a stunning amount of power. Just like in a city urban center that is predominantly black, but the police, judges, city council and mayor are all predominantly white. Number of people does not necessarily equal power.
  - douche 11y ago
    I'm going to invoke identity politics and say that this does not match my lived experiences. All of the deans I ever dealt with at my Ivy League college were women. And Buddy Teevens did not hold an amount of power that could stun a fourth-string walk-on fullback into a concussion.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      I think it is reasonable to say that progress has been made and is being made, but there is still an imbalance that is not representative of the population at large, and probably does not accurately represent the number of qualified women and people of color who could be in positions of power within universities. https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-Presidents-/131138/ https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-Presidents-/13... There are probably also interesting conversations to have about why men are graduating college less than women, particularly black men, who attend college at a rate much lower than any other demographic in the US, including black women. It's tempting to make it "us against them" (no matter who the "us" is), but, it's probably not useful except for the most powerful (who do tend to be white and male, though not all white males fit into that category).
SwellJoe 11y ago
It's surprising, to me, that the author seems to equate the people who use the term "safe spaces" as being on the other side of his calls for liberty. In my personal experience, "safe space" is a term used by activists almost exclusively...and those activists are almost universally, vocally, and visibly, opposed to: Drones, mass surveillance, TSA, DHS, perpetual war, the drug war, the war on terror, etc. The people I know who use the term "safe space" are the same folks I consistently see at rallies and marches and direct actions related to all of those issues (and more, that you never see the white "liberty" guys show up for; women's reproductive health access particularly among poor women of color, immigrant detainment issues, murder of people of color by police, etc.). The term "safe space" has a specific meaning, which has nothing to do with free speech. It is a term used to define a space that people opt into, and generally the use of force is not considered part of the process of achieving a safe space. It isn't about whether you're free to say something. A safe space is something one chooses to be part of; a specific community or conversation, which, as a group, has decided to not be assholes to each other based on race, or gender, or sexual preference, etc. It's interesting that in a conversation alleging people are demanding they never have their feelings hurt, a lot of white men are demanding they not have their feelings hurt by anyone asserting that white men sometimes say/do racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic stuff. The privilege tantrum is truly a thing to behold. It never ceases to amaze me, no matter how many times I see it...and I see it all the time.
- aptwebapps 11y ago
  I never would have posted this if I understood it they way you did. Being a long time reader of the blog I didn't pay too much attention to the term 'safe spaces' because I already knew what he was referring to to. See my other comments in the thread if you're interested in my interpretation but in general I think he should not have used that term.
- grovulent 11y ago
  I do think it is important to give credit to the far left for their activism on certain fronts. On this point I agree with you. You define a safe space as something that people opt into. Do you really believe that? Here's an example that doesn't look very opt-in to me: http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissioner-ray-kelly-shut-down-at-brown/ http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissione... Further - while some people are no doubt standing up for free speech to protect their privilege, many are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with their own feelings - but because we are concerned about the possibility that we might be wrong in our beliefs; the exact opposite of worrying about our own feelings. I don't agree with NYPD actions in recent times. But I need to be able to listen to what they have to say - JUST IN CASE I'm wrong in those beliefs. To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind. That many on the left can't see this is a great modern, political tragedy. They would achieve so much more if they did.
chipsy 11y ago
It is as simple as agreeing to listen. The concept of safe space is reasonable within the assumption that there is a dominant culture that is free-speechified(variously politicized, highest bidder, protectionist, victimized). Within the college spaces it tends to swing towards naive radicalism, engaging in the dominant narrative as a "counter" force without questioning the ideology that creates that context. Or to put it another way - you stand a much better chance of experiencing safe space within a group of trusted acquaintances who agree to the agenda, than in a broad-based organization . The latter is there to employ you in a war.
sologoub 11y ago
Very passionate write up, but what in gods name does Russia have to do with anything here?! No people in Moscow or other parts of Russia will not stop to correct a strangers scarf. In fact, most Russians don't even like eye contact with strangers. They don't smile in the same way Americans do because it's often seen as fake. It it is a very different culture for sure. Author is display exceptional level of bias throwing in culture he doesn't understand or know about...
detcader 11y ago
This is a rant, one of weaker ones for PopeHat. There is nothing on the history or nature of the idea of "safe spaces" beyond a couple of anecdotes in the form of links to previous PopeHat posts. There is zero mention of queer politics and queer theory, despite those enterprises hosting the strongest advocates for safe spaces. One might imagine this is because the writer is ignorant of what is going on modern LGBT politics, or supports queer politics, or realizes that his rant would be unpopular if he talked about ideas like the extremely popular notion that certain kinds of speech is literally violence against trans people. But really, the only purpose here, as is the case with most PopeHat rants, is to attempt to appeal to everyone. The subtle calling-out of women, blacks, and gays will please one type of person. The civil libertarianism will please another type of person. It's a very transparent thing if you read more than one PopeHat rant -- what they choose to focus on is what will maximize their readership and back-patting. Anything else is minimized and ignored. PopeHat is useful because the writers are sometimes passionate enough to produce decent writing about individual cases of people's self-interest overriding common sense and maybe endangering actual freedom. But many posts on it are transparently sparked by dishonest opportunism. In this case, the opportunity was fabricated out of nothing. (see tomlock's comment)
venomsnake 11y ago
SJWs are annoying as hell. On the other hand they are self defeating movement (except the fat acceptance part of them that does not move at all). If you victimize yourself you will never make anything out of you ...

104 points by aptwebapps 11y ago

I'm not really sure how the author is making the link between post 9/11 safety versus liberty issues and safe spaces. It is really quite confusing because the people that exist in these spaces are generally quite vehemently opposed to those same types of interventions. They see themselves as existing in a system which has worked against them for years, and they are suspicious of it. They see legislation as typically working against them, and they are working to fight it. Personally, I support the right for safe spaces to exist, and for people to be angry when they are offended. I am also personally opposed to safe spaces. I'm queer and they made me feel like I wasn't the right type of queer. I view them as another reinforcement of utterly meaningless hierarchies. In this case though, the author's view of the people in those spaces seems to be that they are linked with a movement that they generally reject. The author doesn't have a very nuanced view of those people. I'd venture that they don't know those spaces very well. edit: Its also quite confusing since safe spaces have a history that starts long before 9/11.

angersock 11y ago
The link is basically that a lot of the people arguing for these safe spaces are the same ones that will petition, slander, or decry the folks on the conservative side of things. You don't get to, for example, run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter and still claim that you aren't aligned, at least in principal and methods, with the enemies of liberty--no matter how worthy your cause otherwise. The other issue is that, culturally speaking, the mindset of those critical of microagressions and identity politics and other important issues also tends to dismiss or antagonize folks that are very much supportive of liberty or free speech or the right to bear arms. This ends up in a lot of sapping of resources on both sides as they fight over things as trivial as whether or not you can get married in a church. It's actually very convenient to the folks in charge, if you want to be cynical.
- strangecasts 11y ago
  run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter What are you referring to here?
  - angersock 11y ago
    A good example of this: https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker I'd rather not talk about that subject too much, because it's such a clusterfuck. That said, there's an example for you. EDIT: A similar setup, for the curious. http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2 http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2
    - strangecasts 11y ago
      That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
      - angersock 11y ago
        So, the tools in question (as I understand their use, and I am happy to reconsider my position if my understanding is incorrect!) basically create blocklists based on the edges of known "bad actors" in the Twitter social graph. These users are effectively hidden unless you are already following them for some reason (Block Bot does this, as memory serves). Whoever is subscribed has their potential feed manipulated by...some group? For reasons? It's certainly easier than manually removing trolls, but imagine finding yourself on the wrong end of one of these bots or a more aggressive descendant, just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. The entire point of these things is to make a safe space--where safe is defined as not merely keeping out dissenting thought but indeed making it appear as though it never existed, very much like a memoryhole. On some places (like HN or Something Awful or whatever) you'll see a post downvoted or annotated with "User was banned for this post. Reason: User is a mansplaining shithead". We're a bit down the rabbit hole here. I'm curious if there are such bots created by the folks on the other side of the issue, or intended for use by people on the other side of the aisle. I suspect not, but I simply haven't checked yet.
aptwebapps 11y ago
Yes, there's some unfortunate ambiguity in his use of the term. If you aren't familiar with his stuff, follow the link with the text 'entitled to a "safe space"'[0] to see what he's talking about. And I don't think he objects to people being angry when they're offended - that is illogical at best. He objects to the sort of behavior he links to where the college student in question is trying to get the school to either pull funding for the school newspaper or appointment 'adult supervision' for writing a pretty innocuous complaint about other's behavior [1] (warning: it's a bit opaque). 0. http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-diego/ http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-di... 1. http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-campus-politics/ http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-camp...
- tomlock 11y ago
  Unfortunately for the people that use the term I'm pretty sure that the ambiguity does not exist. It is exceptionally easy for me to read this article as a direct criticism of all safe spaces, while the author draws a link that seems very vague and actually counter to what I've experienced in those spaces. I'm all for criticizing these spaces but the article draws a very bewildering link between a misunderstanding of liberty with the people that support them. That's a tenuous connection, at best. The article confuses me and it doesn't feel like the author has a familiarity with the typical politics of people that frequent safe spaces.
  - aptwebapps 11y ago
    The disconnect you're referring to is precisely due to his misuse of the term. Leave the term out and it will make sense.
    - tomlock 11y ago
      Sincerely: Thank you for engaging with me on this. Given what you've said, I really have two options with this article: 1) I can read it as fundamentally misreading the politics of people who use safe spaces on campus 2) I can read it as misunderstanding the generally accepted meaning of the term "safe space" In both cases, my conclusion is that the author does not have a high level of understanding of the subject matter. I hope this isn't taken as a refutation of criticism broadly, as I've attempted to make clear.
zerocrates 11y ago
I think the complaint is not about safe spaces as something that people can opt into if they prefer, but the idea that an entire university should be such a "safe space." The bulk of the specific complaints are about things like free speech zones, censorship, or banning, disinviting, or attacking speakers. These are all basically methods to provide intellectual "safety" to everybody regardless of whether they've asked for it, and I don't think they're really comparable with more limited (what I would think of as "traditional") safe spaces. Edit: The Judith Shulevitz New York Times opinion piece linked early on (which made the rounds a few weeks ago) is clearly an inspiration of this post, and Shulevitz does a much better job of actually engaging with the "normal" definition of a safe space, its earlier history, and the expansion the article decries. "In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea. But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer."
- tomlock 11y ago
  I'm finding Judith's article much better written. Looking at the response the students had to the "dangerous space" flier, seems to typify free speech. Why shouldn't they ask the university to condemn the flier? But the article is very slippery-slope, and mostly doesn't criticize safe spaces directly, just what the author sees as their side effects.
  - zerocrates 11y ago
    I'd agree that both Shulevitz's piece and this one are flawed. They both offer some interesting anecdotes but don't do a great job of criticism (or even, you could argue, identifying what's being criticized). Instead, both are to some extent willing to leave things at "look at the what the wacky Millenials (substitute "leftists", "feminists", "statists" as needed) are up to!" Part of the problem, I suspect, is the messy intersection with politics and identity in this area. It's tough to come across criticism that doesn't devolve into political posturing, and even thoughtful discussion is easily dismissed as it often comes from "the other side."

late2part 11y ago

We should have taught them not to give up essential liberty for a little safety. Instead, we taught them that the government needs the power to send flying robots to kill anyone on the face of the earth without review and without telling us why. Ken is a great writer and a great American. I'm grateful to him for pointing out these problems with great style.

parfe 11y ago

Very brave of Ken to call out women, black people, and the LGBT community. Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those groups are exposed to ideas they don't like all the time, every day, via every avenue of media. A safe space is a moment of solace to discuss issues specific groups are particularly affected by without being berated by the 18 year old generic white male libertarian who seems so keen on letting the minority groups how they should be behaving.

tsotha 11y ago
>Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those groups are exposed to ideas they don't like all the time, every day, via every avenue of media. It seems you and I live in a different country.
- bandrami 11y ago
  > It seems you and I live in a different country. Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. "Safe spaces" give straight white men the slightest taste of what the rest of the world is like for people who aren't that trifecta. And, predictably, we straight white men freak the hell out when exposed to that...
  - candu 11y ago
    Personally, I've always been skeptical of the "straight white men" trope. Yes, each of these specifiers confer a statistical advantage, but this is such a large demographic group (even within the US) that it seems bizarre to treat it as homogenous in any way. (Then again, perhaps I'm just allergic to marketing-speak, and prefer to think of people as such.)
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. No it isn't. Not only is the media apparatus in full-throated support of "women, black people, and the LGBT community", the last people on the planet who should need safe spaces are the people who demand them: wealthy and the UMC white women at places like Vassar and Oberlin. Truly disadvantaged people can't afford to be that weak.

IvanDenisovich 11y ago

Don't know much about the rest of the US, but debates in my school are usually won by whoever feels hurt and marginalized the most. The latest Israel-Divestment debate revolved around what would be least offensive to Jews/Israelis/Palestinians/Muslims, with Black and Latino students' feelings thrown in for good measure. It was all about who self-victimizes the hardest, objective reality in the middle east never came into play. Surprisingly enough, most Muslim/Jewish/Black/Latino students went on peacefully with their life, totally oblivious to how badly their feelings were hurt during that debate. Thank god the school paper was there to tell them.

formulaT 11y ago
The debate is also settled this way in real politics, it's just that outside some universities, Jewish feelings win. EDIT: for downvoters: why is it ok to point out diversity politics in universities and not in US politics?
- IvanDenisovich 11y ago
  hi formulaT. I was just giving the Israel-Palestinian debate as one example of a bigger issue. No need to hijack the conversation in that direction.
  - formulaT 11y ago
    I just happen to think it's a bad example because political correctness pervades all of politics, but (unlike say White vs Black or Male vs Female), for the Israel-Palestine issue only in the far left would does political correctness favor the Palestinians, while this is reversed in mainstream US politics. So I think it's important to point out that how this example differs from most forms of political correctness.
detcader 11y ago
Do you have any evidence that any of this is actually the case? In my experience it is Zionist feelings verses actual facts that BDS activists present about Israel's expansion. Your anecdotes against mine, I suppose.

douche 11y ago

The idea that women are a minority group on college campuses is laughable. How can you be marginalized when you control public opinion and make up 55-75% of students?

theVirginian 11y ago
Hey! Get those facts out of here!
SwellJoe 11y ago
You can be marginalized if you only make up a small percentage of the executive and administrative staff. Students don't have significant power on most university campuses...administrators and wealthy alumni tend to hold the reigns. And, at some universities, the football team administrators hold a stunning amount of power. Just like in a city urban center that is predominantly black, but the police, judges, city council and mayor are all predominantly white. Number of people does not necessarily equal power.
- douche 11y ago
  I'm going to invoke identity politics and say that this does not match my lived experiences. All of the deans I ever dealt with at my Ivy League college were women. And Buddy Teevens did not hold an amount of power that could stun a fourth-string walk-on fullback into a concussion.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    I think it is reasonable to say that progress has been made and is being made, but there is still an imbalance that is not representative of the population at large, and probably does not accurately represent the number of qualified women and people of color who could be in positions of power within universities. https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-Presidents-/131138/ https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-Presidents-/13... There are probably also interesting conversations to have about why men are graduating college less than women, particularly black men, who attend college at a rate much lower than any other demographic in the US, including black women. It's tempting to make it "us against them" (no matter who the "us" is), but, it's probably not useful except for the most powerful (who do tend to be white and male, though not all white males fit into that category).

SwellJoe 11y ago

It's surprising, to me, that the author seems to equate the people who use the term "safe spaces" as being on the other side of his calls for liberty. In my personal experience, "safe space" is a term used by activists almost exclusively...and those activists are almost universally, vocally, and visibly, opposed to: Drones, mass surveillance, TSA, DHS, perpetual war, the drug war, the war on terror, etc. The people I know who use the term "safe space" are the same folks I consistently see at rallies and marches and direct actions related to all of those issues (and more, that you never see the white "liberty" guys show up for; women's reproductive health access particularly among poor women of color, immigrant detainment issues, murder of people of color by police, etc.). The term "safe space" has a specific meaning, which has nothing to do with free speech. It is a term used to define a space that people opt into, and generally the use of force is not considered part of the process of achieving a safe space. It isn't about whether you're free to say something. A safe space is something one chooses to be part of; a specific community or conversation, which, as a group, has decided to not be assholes to each other based on race, or gender, or sexual preference, etc. It's interesting that in a conversation alleging people are demanding they never have their feelings hurt, a lot of white men are demanding they not have their feelings hurt by anyone asserting that white men sometimes say/do racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic stuff. The privilege tantrum is truly a thing to behold. It never ceases to amaze me, no matter how many times I see it...and I see it all the time.

aptwebapps 11y ago
I never would have posted this if I understood it they way you did. Being a long time reader of the blog I didn't pay too much attention to the term 'safe spaces' because I already knew what he was referring to to. See my other comments in the thread if you're interested in my interpretation but in general I think he should not have used that term.
grovulent 11y ago
I do think it is important to give credit to the far left for their activism on certain fronts. On this point I agree with you. You define a safe space as something that people opt into. Do you really believe that? Here's an example that doesn't look very opt-in to me: http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissioner-ray-kelly-shut-down-at-brown/ http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissione... Further - while some people are no doubt standing up for free speech to protect their privilege, many are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with their own feelings - but because we are concerned about the possibility that we might be wrong in our beliefs; the exact opposite of worrying about our own feelings. I don't agree with NYPD actions in recent times. But I need to be able to listen to what they have to say - JUST IN CASE I'm wrong in those beliefs. To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind. That many on the left can't see this is a great modern, political tragedy. They would achieve so much more if they did.

chipsy 11y ago

It is as simple as agreeing to listen. The concept of safe space is reasonable within the assumption that there is a dominant culture that is free-speechified(variously politicized, highest bidder, protectionist, victimized). Within the college spaces it tends to swing towards naive radicalism, engaging in the dominant narrative as a "counter" force without questioning the ideology that creates that context. Or to put it another way - you stand a much better chance of experiencing safe space within a group of trusted acquaintances who agree to the agenda, than in a broad-based organization . The latter is there to employ you in a war.

sologoub 11y ago

Very passionate write up, but what in gods name does Russia have to do with anything here?! No people in Moscow or other parts of Russia will not stop to correct a strangers scarf. In fact, most Russians don't even like eye contact with strangers. They don't smile in the same way Americans do because it's often seen as fake. It it is a very different culture for sure. Author is display exceptional level of bias throwing in culture he doesn't understand or know about...

detcader 11y ago

This is a rant, one of weaker ones for PopeHat. There is nothing on the history or nature of the idea of "safe spaces" beyond a couple of anecdotes in the form of links to previous PopeHat posts. There is zero mention of queer politics and queer theory, despite those enterprises hosting the strongest advocates for safe spaces. One might imagine this is because the writer is ignorant of what is going on modern LGBT politics, or supports queer politics, or realizes that his rant would be unpopular if he talked about ideas like the extremely popular notion that certain kinds of speech is literally violence against trans people. But really, the only purpose here, as is the case with most PopeHat rants, is to attempt to appeal to everyone. The subtle calling-out of women, blacks, and gays will please one type of person. The civil libertarianism will please another type of person. It's a very transparent thing if you read more than one PopeHat rant -- what they choose to focus on is what will maximize their readership and back-patting. Anything else is minimized and ignored. PopeHat is useful because the writers are sometimes passionate enough to produce decent writing about individual cases of people's self-interest overriding common sense and maybe endangering actual freedom. But many posts on it are transparently sparked by dishonest opportunism. In this case, the opportunity was fabricated out of nothing. (see tomlock's comment)

venomsnake 11y ago

SJWs are annoying as hell. On the other hand they are self defeating movement (except the fat acceptance part of them that does not move at all). If you victimize yourself you will never make anything out of you ...