3 ms·
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 sho
by 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 agoI'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."
- tomlock 12y agoI'd actively encourage everyone to listen to "the other side" regardless of what side they are on. I see the popehat article as guilty of not doing that, but similarly I think dismissing popehat entirely as a result of this article is a mistake for "my side" because the same thing will happen when we criticize it. We won't have understood the full picture, so we'll use the wrong words and make mistakes. I feel like this is true in many domains.