4 ms·

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

by tomlock 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter What are you referring to here?
  - angersock 12y 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 12y ago
      That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
      - angersock 12y 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.
        obstinate 12y ago
        > just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists. > appear as though it never existed Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
- Frondo 12y ago
  Vicious media smear campaigns? Automated blcaklists as enemies of freedom? Come on. The gamergaters are making death and rape threats and publishing people's home addresses, the targets of those threats are blocking them from view. There's no equivalence here. As for the word salad about liberty and guns, it almost sounds like you're trolling.
  - angersock 12y ago
    It's pretty easy to figure out how a system for automatically and preemptively blacklisting people (even one that is opt-in!) can be abused. Creating and fielding such tools does not make you a good person, and it doesn't make you a friend of freedom of speech given how it is used and deployed. As for the rest, I got somewhat off in the weeds, sure.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      When you're defending death and rape threats--and the accompanying publication of the threat targets' home addresses--under the banner of "free speech," it's time for you to take a good long look at yourself and your values.
      - angersock 12y ago
        I am a free-speech absolutist. I value free speech, of any variety, for any reason, with any intent. That said, there is a very large problem maintaining this view in the era of mass point-to-point communication if one also (as I do!) admits the issues of emotional harm. The problem is not so much in the messages, but in the quantity and ubiquity. I've brought it up before, I'll bring it up again, I'll probably even write a blog post about it, but everybody is so hot-and-bothered about the current victim-of-the-month that they don't care about the underlying philosophical issues.
        Frondo 12y ago
        And again, this isn't about your right to make noise. Again, it's about everyone else's right to ignore you if they want. Free speech isn't compulsory listening.
aptwebapps 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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."

by tomlock 12y ago

angersock 12y 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 12y ago
run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter What are you referring to here?
- angersock 12y 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 12y ago
    That doesn't really explain much, sorry.
    - angersock 12y 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.
      - obstinate 12y ago
        > just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists. > appear as though it never existed Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
Frondo 12y ago
Vicious media smear campaigns? Automated blcaklists as enemies of freedom? Come on. The gamergaters are making death and rape threats and publishing people's home addresses, the targets of those threats are blocking them from view. There's no equivalence here. As for the word salad about liberty and guns, it almost sounds like you're trolling.
- angersock 12y ago
  It's pretty easy to figure out how a system for automatically and preemptively blacklisting people (even one that is opt-in!) can be abused. Creating and fielding such tools does not make you a good person, and it doesn't make you a friend of freedom of speech given how it is used and deployed. As for the rest, I got somewhat off in the weeds, sure.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    When you're defending death and rape threats--and the accompanying publication of the threat targets' home addresses--under the banner of "free speech," it's time for you to take a good long look at yourself and your values.
    - angersock 12y ago
      I am a free-speech absolutist. I value free speech, of any variety, for any reason, with any intent. That said, there is a very large problem maintaining this view in the era of mass point-to-point communication if one also (as I do!) admits the issues of emotional harm. The problem is not so much in the messages, but in the quantity and ubiquity. I've brought it up before, I'll bring it up again, I'll probably even write a blog post about it, but everybody is so hot-and-bothered about the current victim-of-the-month that they don't care about the underlying philosophical issues.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        And again, this isn't about your right to make noise. Again, it's about everyone else's right to ignore you if they want. Free speech isn't compulsory listening.

aptwebapps 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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."