4 ms·

>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 ave

by tsotha 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
        tsotha 12y ago
        >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. We were talking about the US. I have little interest in what other countries do unless it becomes a problem for mine. >There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care... If by that you mean adding restrictions to infanticide, well, I suppose they get proposed on a regular basis. They hardly ever pass, though, and when they do they're gutted by the courts. Not what I'd describe as a "never-ending raft". More like a soggy paper boat. >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. Nice try. Just because I draw your attention to a double standard doesn't mean I'm ready to run to a "safe space". I'm simply pointing out white men, at 30% of the population, don't control the country. If men actually had "political dominance" we'd have laws against paternity fraud. And you wouldn't be able to sponge off your ex after deciding you weren't that into him any more. Women pay less than half the health care dollars and yet they use 2/3 of the services. That hardly seems fair, does it? But no. More than half the voters are women complaining about having no power while at the same time calling the shots.

by tsotha 12y ago

bandrami 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
      - tsotha 12y ago
        >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. We were talking about the US. I have little interest in what other countries do unless it becomes a problem for mine. >There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care... If by that you mean adding restrictions to infanticide, well, I suppose they get proposed on a regular basis. They hardly ever pass, though, and when they do they're gutted by the courts. Not what I'd describe as a "never-ending raft". More like a soggy paper boat. >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. Nice try. Just because I draw your attention to a double standard doesn't mean I'm ready to run to a "safe space". I'm simply pointing out white men, at 30% of the population, don't control the country. If men actually had "political dominance" we'd have laws against paternity fraud. And you wouldn't be able to sponge off your ex after deciding you weren't that into him any more. Women pay less than half the health care dollars and yet they use 2/3 of the services. That hardly seems fair, does it? But no. More than half the voters are women complaining about having no power while at the same time calling the shots.