6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      I'm not interested in diving into what you mean by "full-throated support," but would instead like to ask, why shouldn't they? Why are those groups of people not worthy of support, full-throated or otherwise? If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that?
      - tsotha 11y ago
        >I'm not interested in diving into what you mean by "full-throated support," but would instead like to ask, why shouldn't they? Why are those groups of people not worthy of support, full-throated or otherwise? I didn't say they shouldn't. I was merely pointing out these groups get no more in the way of negative messaging from the media than white men. Quite a bit less, actually. >If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that? Why indeed? Maybe because they already have political power in proportion to their size? More so, in fact - if you want to know who's in charge all you need to do is find out who you can't criticize. White men, at what, about 30% of the US population, seem to be quite safe to criticize, wouldn't you say?
        Frondo 11y ago
        What? They already have political power in proportion to their size? How do you figure that? There are 19 women heads of state in the world right now, out of 190-some countries. Worldwide, only about 22% of parliamentarians (MPs, representatives, etc) are women. I'm pretty sure women make up more than 22% of the population. There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care--women, not men, are having female-specific health care decisions made for them by (male-dominated) force of law, rather than by consultation with a doctor or personal agency. As for all this talk about who gets criticized, you make it sound like white men have, in addition to political dominance, unimaginably thin skin and sensitive constitutions. "Stop! We're being criticized! They're saying we have all the powerrrrr!" My eyes, they can't stop rolling.
aptwebapps 11y ago
> Very brave of Ken to call out women, black people, and the LGBT community. He didn't do that. He used the term 'safe spaces' to talk about something else, which was obviously a mistake but please don't get hung up on the terminology and read the whole and follow a few of the links.
- parfe 11y ago
  >He didn't do that. You must have read his writing differently than I considering he wrote: >I call these young people out for valuing illusory and subjective safety over liberty.
  - aptwebapps 11y ago
    I can see how that sounds but take a look a the preceding paragraph and the links in it: "For some time I've been mean [0] to university students who feel entitled to a "safe space" [1] — by which they seem to mean a space where they are insulated [2] from ideas they don't like [3]." He does not mean "I hereby call out out these young people ..." but rather "This is what I did in the preceding links". This is a sticky topic and it's really easy to read stuff into things that isn't there - especially when the author expropriates a term like 'safe spaces' but if you read it critically and follow a few of the links I think you'll discover that he is in no way attacking minorities. 0. http://popehat.com/2014/11/05/breaking-existence-of-u-of-oregon-student-senator-miles-sisk-confirms-failure-of-american-experiment/ http://popehat.com/2014/11/05/breaking-existence-of-u-of-ore... 1. 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... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul... 3. http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/opinion-campus-speakers-should-be-chosen-with-discretion http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/opinion-campus-s...
theVirginian 11y ago
This isn't tumblr...
formulaT 11y ago
I see things the other way around. The generic white males are constantly berated and ridiculed in the mainstream media. People are constantly getting in trouble or losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, e.g. Satya Nadella for not knowing the "right" response to the issue of women not asking for raises.
- tomlock 11y ago
  I chuckled a little because you mention "generic white males" and then Satya in the next sentence. Satya's comments were poorly stated and he said as much. People spoke freely about it, and he clarified. Free speech in action!
  - formulaT 11y ago
    You must be easily amused then. Satya Nadella was an example of people in generally being required to speak in a politically correct way. Haven't you heard of intersectionality? Nadella could still be accused of having male privilege in spite of being non-White. And your analysis is very shallow. Of course speech was "free" in the legal sense, that is not the issue. The issue is that even though his honest opinion was that in the long run, women's approach might not be a big disadvantage, he was forced to recant and give the "right" answer.
    - tomlock 11y ago
      I am easily amused and I also know what intersectionality is. I'm interested in why you have the perspective that Satya was being honest and then recanted, since he pretty clearly stated that he misspoke, and it is easy to see how he misspoke. My perspective is he was speaking in terms of how tech ought to be for women, but failed to mention that the situation for women was currently different. The idea that women ought to be able to trust the system is a given, but Satya didn't say "but it currently isn't so" and in his apology he cleared that up. Good on him!
      - formulaT 11y ago

by parfe 11y ago

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.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    I'm not interested in diving into what you mean by "full-throated support," but would instead like to ask, why shouldn't they? Why are those groups of people not worthy of support, full-throated or otherwise? If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that?
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >I'm not interested in diving into what you mean by "full-throated support," but would instead like to ask, why shouldn't they? Why are those groups of people not worthy of support, full-throated or otherwise? I didn't say they shouldn't. I was merely pointing out these groups get no more in the way of negative messaging from the media than white men. Quite a bit less, actually. >If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that? Why indeed? Maybe because they already have political power in proportion to their size? More so, in fact - if you want to know who's in charge all you need to do is find out who you can't criticize. White men, at what, about 30% of the US population, seem to be quite safe to criticize, wouldn't you say?
      - Frondo 11y ago
        What? They already have political power in proportion to their size? How do you figure that? There are 19 women heads of state in the world right now, out of 190-some countries. Worldwide, only about 22% of parliamentarians (MPs, representatives, etc) are women. I'm pretty sure women make up more than 22% of the population. There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care--women, not men, are having female-specific health care decisions made for them by (male-dominated) force of law, rather than by consultation with a doctor or personal agency. As for all this talk about who gets criticized, you make it sound like white men have, in addition to political dominance, unimaginably thin skin and sensitive constitutions. "Stop! We're being criticized! They're saying we have all the powerrrrr!" My eyes, they can't stop rolling.

aptwebapps 11y ago

> Very brave of Ken to call out women, black people, and the LGBT community. He didn't do that. He used the term 'safe spaces' to talk about something else, which was obviously a mistake but please don't get hung up on the terminology and read the whole and follow a few of the links.

parfe 11y ago
>He didn't do that. You must have read his writing differently than I considering he wrote: >I call these young people out for valuing illusory and subjective safety over liberty.
- aptwebapps 11y ago
  I can see how that sounds but take a look a the preceding paragraph and the links in it: "For some time I've been mean [0] to university students who feel entitled to a "safe space" [1] — by which they seem to mean a space where they are insulated [2] from ideas they don't like [3]." He does not mean "I hereby call out out these young people ..." but rather "This is what I did in the preceding links". This is a sticky topic and it's really easy to read stuff into things that isn't there - especially when the author expropriates a term like 'safe spaces' but if you read it critically and follow a few of the links I think you'll discover that he is in no way attacking minorities. 0. http://popehat.com/2014/11/05/breaking-existence-of-u-of-oregon-student-senator-miles-sisk-confirms-failure-of-american-experiment/ http://popehat.com/2014/11/05/breaking-existence-of-u-of-ore... 1. 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... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul... 3. http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/opinion-campus-speakers-should-be-chosen-with-discretion http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/opinion-campus-s...

theVirginian 11y ago

This isn't tumblr...

formulaT 11y ago

I see things the other way around. The generic white males are constantly berated and ridiculed in the mainstream media. People are constantly getting in trouble or losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, e.g. Satya Nadella for not knowing the "right" response to the issue of women not asking for raises.

tomlock 11y ago
I chuckled a little because you mention "generic white males" and then Satya in the next sentence. Satya's comments were poorly stated and he said as much. People spoke freely about it, and he clarified. Free speech in action!
- formulaT 11y ago
  You must be easily amused then. Satya Nadella was an example of people in generally being required to speak in a politically correct way. Haven't you heard of intersectionality? Nadella could still be accused of having male privilege in spite of being non-White. And your analysis is very shallow. Of course speech was "free" in the legal sense, that is not the issue. The issue is that even though his honest opinion was that in the long run, women's approach might not be a big disadvantage, he was forced to recant and give the "right" answer.
  - tomlock 11y ago
    I am easily amused and I also know what intersectionality is. I'm interested in why you have the perspective that Satya was being honest and then recanted, since he pretty clearly stated that he misspoke, and it is easy to see how he misspoke. My perspective is he was speaking in terms of how tech ought to be for women, but failed to mention that the situation for women was currently different. The idea that women ought to be able to trust the system is a given, but Satya didn't say "but it currently isn't so" and in his apology he cleared that up. Good on him!
    - formulaT 11y ago