Republicans: College is Bad

[Dragon Angel]

I think that certainly the argument can be made that tolerance should extend both ways if for nothing else then to protect everyone. Do I like people like Milo spewing hate speech or idiot Rebuplicans saying whatever lame brained sexist nonsense? Of course not. But I also like being able to say shit like "I'm the bald of religion" or "I want to marry a dude if I so felt like it". Because there was a time not so long ago saying that was considered socially unacceptable by many, some place still are. But the law protected (atleast the letter even if not those charging with enforcing it).

Uh, neither the letter nor the spirit of the law historically allowed homosexuality. In certain places such as Britain, you could get forcibly sterilized for being homosexual. In America, the fact that law enforcement targeted homosexuals was the reason Stonewall happened. Sodomy laws were and still are a thing.

There is a clear defined line between intolerance of homosexuals and intolerance of those who do not tolerate homosexuality. Read up on the paradox of tolerance sometime.

I'm not against protests but I am against denying anyone free speech which many times protests are aimed at doing, suppressing the right for someone to speak their peace. I only think someone protesting a bigot becomes as bad as them when they start following their rulebook. A anti-bigot protestor threatening people, denying their rights, even physically assaulting people, well paint my ass silver and call me the Silver Sphincter but that sounds like some pretty shitty shit to do, some almost bigoted shit to do.

And yes, I don't think anyone is entitled to a campus free of fear if they consider some assclown saying words to be reason to be afraid, if they think fellow students or the administration allowing it to take place means they need to be afraid of those lot. You have the right to not be harmed, words even bad ones, even bigoted ones I personally don't think is true harm. Muh privilege.

God you should really learn to shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. This is a real problem with you. Protesting and criticizing a speaker and petitioning a university administration to deplatform them isn't "denying their free speech". That is not how the First Amendment works. This is high school shit.

Also, people are going to be understandably pissed if these speakers expose them to danger, and their surrounding university staff and law authorities refuse to do anything about that. I've gone through this already elsewhere and I'm not going through it here again. And if you think words are not "true harm", oh arbiter of what is truly hurtful, then why don't you tell that to the countless queers who have committed suicide because of relentless bullying.

A, Its a bit more then disliking someones hat, its hating against someone based on their beliefs. Not exactly on the same level as homophobia but still can be a form of discrimination. B, that was pretty much my point that people have to learn to not be disruptive or risk getting shitcanned. C, it depends on the place but I'm sure most place ain't going to mind a peck on the cheek or even a hug. Even a hug can trigger some tiny brained caveman who can't handle the sight of two dudes being intimate at all. However if they want to keep their job they have to learn how to not go shouting "its against gawd" if they want to keep their jerb.

You fail to realize that goes the other way. Wearing a MAGA hat or preaching Trump gospel in the middle of an office can be interpreted as a supremely political message that can and probably will start fights. It's the office version of bait. That in itself can be considered disruption. It's also mind-numbingly idiotic to compare that with being homosexual because homosexuality is not just a mere belief. This is beyond apples and oranges, not comparable at all.

I'm getting that atleast some kids aren't learning those skills because they are not displaying them at skool and sometimes even in the workplace such as that intern who did not learn normal workplace conflict solving skills but instead went with the petition. To steal......uh borrow a line somebody else said, workplaces aren't a democracy, they are at best a benevolent dictatorship. At school that shit goes, they can throw together a petition, they can demand, doesn't work the same usually at a job.

You're stuck so deep in those right wing outlets pal, you might want to go outside and get yourself a little more perspective.

I think there is a time and place for protest. And yes, there should be atleast some measure of respect, at the least no unwarranted physical violence, no mob antics designed to harass and intimidate people. One thing the fucking Christians had right (bout the only thing, bitterness thy name is Joun) was do unto others as you want dun onto you. You act like a violent asshole then don't be surprised when someone responds in kind, you act like a rights restricting fuck then don't act like its unexpected when your own rights get restricted.

If protests were "respectful", then they would be ineffective. Protests are supposed to be in your face. Protests are supposed to rile your emotions. If they didn't, they would be easily ignored. Why do you think people end up reserving time out of their days to even do these protests? Just for shits and giggles?

Also for christ's sake make your points more concise or I'll throw you out of an airlock.

[Flagg]

He's literally channeling professional idiots Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

[biostem]

Well, let me ask you this - what if there were colleges that only focused on hard sciences, with absolutely no "soft sciences" or "social justice" courses? What if a new form of college loan was introduced - one where some backer interviewed you, you submitted what type of degree you were going for, and they would choose to back you or not back you, in exchange for a % of your future earnings? There is a pretty obvious return on investment in, say, a petroleum engineering degree, vs a social justice one...

Would you care to explain, exactly, what a "social justice" course (or degree, are you imply at the end) actually is, in your mind?

Classes that focus on any of the various gender or race identities, which don't focus on empirical, testable claims or evidential research, and which don't permit discussion or counterarguments.

[Flagg]

Well, let me ask you this - what if there were colleges that only focused on hard sciences, with absolutely no "soft sciences" or "social justice" courses? What if a new form of college loan was introduced - one where some backer interviewed you, you submitted what type of degree you were going for, and they would choose to back you or not back you, in exchange for a % of your future earnings? There is a pretty obvious return on investment in, say, a petroleum engineering degree, vs a social justice one...

Would you care to explain, exactly, what a "social justice" course (or degree, are you imply at the end) actually is, in your mind?

Classes that focus on any of the various gender or race identities, which don't focus on empirical, testable claims or evidential research, and which don't permit discussion or counterarguments.

So basically "things you dislike"?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Classes that focus on any of the various gender or race identities, which don't focus on empirical, testable claims or evidential research, and which don't permit discussion or counterarguments.

This is just as pointlessly vague and hand-waivey as your last post. EXACTLY what classes are you referring to? Can you point to any actual examples of a class that fits this description in a university curriculum?

And let me just head off what I know will be your initial reply, don't just give the name of some random class you pick off a university website; since you are specifically making a claim about classes that "don't focus on empirical, testable claims or evidential research, and which don't permit discussion and counterarguments" you are actually going to have to demonstrate this claim. This means you are actually going to have to provide some evidence of these claims, rather than vaguely alluding to the strawman fantasy you seem to have constructed in your petty little mind.

[TheFeniX]

Classes that focus on any of the various gender or race identities, which don't focus on empirical, testable claims or evidential research, and which don't permit discussion or counterarguments.

Does the last part really exist? And if they do, how many are their realistically? I have to admit, spent most of my time in a public community college and only a year or so at UH. And all my courses have either been basics, technical, or (ugh) business classes. My degree plans have had nothing like what you describe. Obviously, POINTLESS arguments are frowned upon, but I've never heard of a college level class where discussion and counterarguments weren't permitted.

And 4-year colleges seem to be a shitty place for discussion either way. My time spent at UH was annoying compared to community college. Used to dealing with classes in the 15-30 range leaning more to the lower side*, were now blown up into the 50 and up. You can't HAVE discussions in a class that size without it just getting stupid and annoying everyone. It's get in, listen to wordwordwordwords, while you takenotesnotesnotesnotes, and get the fuck out to beat traffic.

Community College, for all the shit it gets, is where I had actual discussions and arguments. Shit like "Unions? Garbage or saviors of the working class?" Is there an empirical answer to that? Or does the answer lie in the middle? Can you lean one way or the other without getting so far out of field?

Now, what I have heard of is so-called "safe space" classes where groups can get together and form a narrative. But I can't even give an example. I will say that if a group of people want to get together and spend money to not have people dump on their opinion, more power to them. If there actually was a (and I'm just throwing something stupid out here people) "Terrors committed by the male gender" class where people get together and just rehash all the vile shit perpetrated by men over the years with no arguing, fuck it: I don't care unless it was showing up as a requirement of my degree.

I mean, I've got my own safe spaces. One of them is my Teamspeak server in my private channel. It's noted there we talk about whatever the fuck we want because the relationship I have with the other people who join is like that. You don't like it? No one is asking you to hang around.

*My "End of Life" Network Administration class to end out my degree was 12 people, knocked down to 8 because some people just couldn't hack it (sucks they got that far). I was on a first name basis with both technology coordinators for the college.

[Dragon Angel]

"Safe space" was never supposed to mean that, though. It used to mean "a place where <marginalized group> can get together in a space where <slurs against marginalized group> and <trolling marginalized group> is expressly forbidden". It became twisted by the edgelord crowd that saw the idea of having spaces where marginalized people may not need to get shit on as OH NOEZ THIS VIOLATES MY FREE SPEECH! This very forum, as it bans assholes from trolling queer people, let alone being outright racist or misogynist, would be considered a safe space under the traditional term.

[Simon_Jester]

Joun_Lord:

Fuckit.

You know what the best example I can think of is a 'safe space' as the word is actually meant by the people who invented its use?

The teacher's lounge at the school where I teach.

In a high school, adults are the minority. And we spend our entire day dealing with the weird crazy crap teenagers do instead of commonsense stuff like "their work" and "shut the fuck up and get shit done." We deal with fourteen-year-olds who knock over furniture fighting over a crayon (I swear I am not making this up) and then say they were 'just playing.' We deal with screaming shitfits from teenage males with seventeen year old bodies and the emotional control of a five year old. We deal with children who just do not get "rules apply to you." We deal with every damn thing.

Now, many of the things the children are doing are not in and of themselves wrong. They're just immature. They don't understand what they're doing, or why it makes my brain hurt to have to deal with it. Nobody is hurt in a sense that I can put a number on.

But, if you've ever spent enough time around hordes of punk teenagers, you will know that deep, burning longing... "CAN I TALK TO A FREAKING ADULT FOR A CHANGE?"

...

That's why we have a teacher's lounge. The HVAC is iffy, the furniture is ratty and the carpet still stinks even after they ripped up the flooring and replaced everything, but by God it has one thing going for it: there are no students in there. Anyone I speak to, in that room, knows what it's like. They are not, on the whole, going to raise infantile shitfits. They understand how to get shit done, how to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't needlessly grate on others, how not to casually abuse and vandalize their surroundings because they're too immature to control themselves and too ignorant to realize someone's gotta pay for that shit.

In the rest of the building, sure, some of the kids are mature enough to not raise these problems, I'm not dealing with them all the time. But I can't ever know it won't blow up in my face. Except, when on planning period, I can go to the teacher's lounge to think or organize or prepare or something.

Suddenly, I know that the people I'm dealing with are adults. They may not be adults I like, they may not be helpful, but they're adults. They know how to not present my life with more problems than it needs. And that is such a wonderful feeling. Everyone who has that one category of people who give them horrible, unreasonable shit all the time should be able to have that feeling, once in a while, of "no one is going to give me shit for the next hour. I will meet only people who are not going to give me shit."

Everyone should have some place they can go for that.

...

From my point of view, all these fuckwits laughing at the idea of 'safe spaces' are just slightly older versions of the moron punks who think they can walk into the teacher's lounge and beat on the vending machine like a retarded chimpanzee, because it won't give them a bag of chips. We have the only vending machine in the building that works all the time, precisely because it's the one that doesn't get abused by retarded chimps every day.

They're the same moron punks who think they can use our bathroom, when it's the only bathroom in the building we can walk into without risking a sexual harassment charge. And the one that doesn't have a stench that reaches across the hall every time you open the door, because, well, it's not being used by retarded chimps.

I mean, one place in the whole building where you can get some work done or take a breath while drinking your coffee and eating your lunch, and not have to worry about Yet Another Teen Drama is not too much to ask.

But apparently, from fuckwit's point of view, that's wrong. Because it is, quite literally, a "safe space." Only the minority that needs it is 'adults' and the majority being excluded is 'teenagers.'
________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE:

Obviously, most students are basically OK people. But it's that five or ten or twenty percent that give you shit, you know? Just being able to close them out is a tremendous load off someone's mind, sometimes.

[Joun_Lord]

Uh, neither the letter nor the spirit of the law historically allowed homosexuality. In certain places such as Britain, you could get forcibly sterilized for being homosexual. In America, the fact that law enforcement targeted homosexuals was the reason Stonewall happened. Sodomy laws were and still are a thing.

There is a clear defined line between intolerance of homosexuals and intolerance of those who do not tolerate homosexuality. Read up on the paradox of tolerance sometime.

Sorry for the late reply, between my social anxiety and computer troubles I wasn't exactly wanting to jump back in this super fast. Anyway.....

Yeah the letter or spirit of FREE SPEECH laws didn't allow homosexuality. Thats like wonder why gun laws don't allow for same sex marriage. What free speech did was allow people to speak their piece to alter the deal of laws regarding homosexuality, among other things, to make sure downright barbaric shit like what happened to Alan Turing hopefully never be repeated. Without free speech allowing people to speak out, to say their love is the same as anybody elses, to fight for equal goddamn rights, never would have happened.

That is an interesting read though I never advocated for unlimited tolerance. I believe in tolerance to a point where it causes harm to others. Tolerate fruity Christian fundies until they start hurting their kids, tolerate Mormon cults until they diddle kids, tolerate religious minorities backwards beliefs until they begin using them as a bludgeon to harm, even tolerate racists until they move from words to actual violence. Unlimited tolerance is most certainly an oxymoron (insert joke about me knowing plenty of that).

God you should really learn to shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about. This is a real problem with you. Protesting and criticizing a speaker and petitioning a university administration to deplatform them isn't "denying their free speech". That is not how the First Amendment works. This is high school shit.

Also, people are going to be understandably pissed if these speakers expose them to danger, and their surrounding university staff and law authorities refuse to do anything about that. I've gone through this already elsewhere and I'm not going through it here again. And if you think words are not "true harm", oh arbiter of what is truly hurtful, then why don't you tell that to the countless queers who have committed suicide because of relentless bullying.

There is certainly a difference between protesting/criticizing someone and physically preventing them from speaking, threatening them and creating a legitimately unsafe environment.

In alot of the cases its not speakers exposing people to danger, its all the danger others are creating in response to the speakers. Blame Richard Spencer, Milo, and Hoff Summers for being toxic shitheads, even blame them for creating a toxic atmosphere. Blaming them for a bunch of protesters setting half a town on fire and threatening and attacking people is incorrect. The staff and law enforcement should be protecting people but in this case racist ass shitbags from "tolerant people".

Bullying is different from just words even if sometimes people don't know the difference. Bullying is a personal attack, bullying does cause harm. Some asshole saying assholish shit you don't want to hear ISN'T bullying, someone disagreeing with you isn't bullying or trolling.

You fail to realize that goes the other way. Wearing a MAGA hat or preaching Trump gospel in the middle of an office can be interpreted as a supremely political message that can and probably will start fights. It's the office version of bait. That in itself can be considered disruption. It's also mind-numbingly idiotic to compare that with being homosexual because homosexuality is not just a mere belief. This is beyond apples and oranges, not comparable at all.

Just wearing a freaking hate should not be bait anymore then if someone was wearing a Hillary 2016 shirt or a Bernie or Bust shirt or whatever. Yeah someone going around spewing how 'uge Trump's wall is going to be and how he's going to keep out all the racial expletives and make them pay for it because he's gotta show off how big his......tower is would be a disruption. Same thing if it was some LGBT person or supporter was going around saying their own political stuff.

The comparison was not whether its a belief or not, either way belief or born that way or perform that way, its part of someone. Your politics, your sexuality, your gender, you religion or lack of, all are fundamental parts of who you are whether or not they are choices and to discriminate against someone for ANY of them whether or not they can change their mind is bad. Its equally bad if someone discriminates against me because I'm an atheist then if someone discriminates against you for your (apologies if I'm wording this wrong) gender identity.

Sure I can just tomorrow say "I love Jesus" whereas you unfortunately cannot just pray away your condition. Does that mean its more legitimate to fuck around with me?

You're stuck so deep in those right wing outlets pal, you might want to go outside and get yourself a little more perspective.

Considering where I live going outside would expose to far more right wing bullshit then on the interwebs. Also is possibly a bit of irony in that I don't like to go out because I need a safe space away from people.

If protests were "respectful", then they would be ineffective. Protests are supposed to be in your face. Protests are supposed to rile your emotions. If they didn't, they would be easily ignored. Why do you think people end up reserving time out of their days to even do these protests? Just for shits and giggles?

Protests aren't supposed to injure people, protests aren't supposed to look like a pyromaniacs wet dream (or would it be pyromaniac dry dream, probably wouldn't like a wet dream), and protests damn sure aren't supposed to turn into a riot. I question how effective a protest is when the people protesting FUCKING NAZIS, like actual Hitler saluting Nazis and not just anyone who disagrees with me Nazis, and a CHILD MOLESTER come out looking like the bad guys. I mean thats pretty fucking stupid and not to put a too fine of a point on it, hurts teh cause people are protesting.

Also for christ's sake make your points more concise or I'll throw you out of an airlock.

Hey I'm not a Cylon buddy, don't be trying that anti-toaster stuff on me. Next you'll be trying to confuse me with some logic paradox. And apologies if my post are a bit hard to read at times (like all times probably). I have a bit of a rambling scatter brained approach to writing that comes from my scatter brained....brains and manner of thought. Get pretty manic sometimes, sometimes my sentences are dry and sometimes they are written diarrhea that takes a team of linguists and a Rosetta Stone to translate.

Joun_Lord:

Fuckit.

You know what the best example I can think of is a 'safe space' as the word is actually meant by the people who invented its use?

The teacher's lounge at the school where I teach.

I've nothing against a safe space in general or divided spaces when its actually being used to keep people safe or allow people of a group to be themselves. I'd have to be a hypocrite to say I don't enjoy the benefits of keeping myself removed from the rest of human kind as often as possible, I'm not exactly a people person. Whats more I get severe anxiety around people, start hyper ventilating, even go through some symptoms of nausea and chest pains. Someone touches me I freak out, someone wants to shake my hand I feel like I am being forced to touch lava. So I understand the need for a personal hug box, I understand the need to be in a safe space.

I also understand people of different cultures, races, religions, genders, sexualities, and whatever might need a place to be themselves. Guys need a place to be guys, girls need a place to be girls, so on. A Muslim might not be able to fully express themselves around other religions, a African American might feel uncomfortable fully being themselves around other races. While I'm sure there is some disagreement over that assertion, there is nothing wrong with a place for a people to be themselves.

My problem is when a safe space becomes a place to coddle, to remove themselves not from harm but from anything they don't like. My problem is when a divided space becomes the norm, when its seen as correct to segregate everyone. Its seems like a step back for equality and the free dissemination of ideas among people. You cannot learn if everyone is sequestering themselves away in echo chambers, they cannot see their neighbors and peers if everyone is separated into their own little group. Does nothing to create understanding, to create common ground.

Though I'm all for space space hug boxes away from teenagers because teenagers are just terrible, just terrible. The only thing you learn from them is why some other species eat their young.

I work at a place that unfortunately gets teens tromping in and it seems like any damage, any busted computer, any feces smeared in the bathroom, any fight, any thing bad is done by some teens.

[Dragon Angel]

Yeah the letter or spirit of FREE SPEECH laws didn't allow homosexuality. Thats like wonder why gun laws don't allow for same sex marriage. What free speech did was allow people to speak their piece to alter the deal of laws regarding homosexuality, among other things, to make sure downright barbaric shit like what happened to Alan Turing hopefully never be repeated. Without free speech allowing people to speak out, to say their love is the same as anybody elses, to fight for equal goddamn rights, never would have happened.

Except, historically that wasn't the case either. Homosexuality was censored from the public identity altogether and ignored by lawmakers. Do you not consider operating a gay bar, and being openly gay outside free speech?

You cannot be selective as to what constitutes "free speech" when you try to claim we were allowed to speak our piece. We were not. That is historical fact and no amount of repetition from you will change this.

That is an interesting read though I never advocated for unlimited tolerance. I believe in tolerance to a point where it causes harm to others. Tolerate fruity Christian fundies until they start hurting their kids, tolerate Mormon cults until they diddle kids, tolerate religious minorities backwards beliefs until they begin using them as a bludgeon to harm, even tolerate racists until they move from words to actual violence. Unlimited tolerance is most certainly an oxymoron (insert joke about me knowing plenty of that).

Except, man, it has already caused harm. Just today I've learned of a bill being proposed to eradicate the concept of gender identity. Let's not even go into all the "religious freedom" acts and the trans bathroom bills. Let's not even go into the totality of queer people, especially trans, who are injured or killed in hate crimes. What you refuse to do is actually listen to the people affected by these, and you are more invested in giving even larger space to the bigots than devoting thought to the fact that people are being harmed by them now.

If you think people are going to wait until you've personally deemed it "true harm", then you're in for a very cold awakening. If we were having this argument a half century ago, you'd have taken the position of "well burning crosses in black people's backyards isn't physically harming them, it's just burning a completely wooden object".

There is certainly a difference between protesting/criticizing someone and physically preventing them from speaking, threatening them and creating a legitimately unsafe environment.

In alot of the cases its not speakers exposing people to danger, its all the danger others are creating in response to the speakers. Blame Richard Spencer, Milo, and Hoff Summers for being toxic shitheads, even blame them for creating a toxic atmosphere. Blaming them for a bunch of protesters setting half a town on fire and threatening and attacking people is incorrect. The staff and law enforcement should be protecting people but in this case racist ass shitbags from "tolerant people".

Bullying is different from just words even if sometimes people don't know the difference. Bullying is a personal attack, bullying does cause harm. Some asshole saying assholish shit you don't want to hear ISN'T bullying, someone disagreeing with you isn't bullying or trolling.

Oh, I suppose Milo outing undocumented students or identifying a trans woman in front of a hungry audience isn't bullying then.

Also great backpedaling. Let me quote you from earlier:

I think this sort of entitled attitude needs nipped in the bud or butt or whatever if for nothing else then the unrealistic expectations its creates of the real world (like that person who got fired from an internship for trying to start a petition to wear casual clothing because on person was allowed to wear casual footwear) and it creates a certain intolerant attitude not only towards shitbags (the alt-right, Neo-Nazis, and cunts like Milo Yianopolos) but towards anyone who holds a different opinion.

I'm not against protests but I am against denying anyone free speech which many times protests are aimed at doing, suppressing the right for someone to speak their peace.

[emphasis mine]

Guess what happens if a protest succeeds against one of these speakers? I'd quote more but your writing style is antithetical to the idea of human reading.

Like I said, you are digging yourself even deeper, so I recommend that you learn your lesson and shut the fuck up.

Just wearing a freaking hate should not be bait anymore then if someone was wearing a Hillary 2016 shirt or a Bernie or Bust shirt or whatever. Yeah someone going around spewing how 'uge Trump's wall is going to be and how he's going to keep out all the racial expletives and make them pay for it because he's gotta show off how big his......tower is would be a disruption. Same thing if it was some LGBT person or supporter was going around saying their own political stuff.

The comparison was not whether its a belief or not, either way belief or born that way or perform that way, its part of someone. Your politics, your sexuality, your gender, you religion or lack of, all are fundamental parts of who you are whether or not they are choices and to discriminate against someone for ANY of them whether or not they can change their mind is bad. Its equally bad if someone discriminates against me because I'm an atheist then if someone discriminates against you for your (apologies if I'm wording this wrong) gender identity.

Sure I can just tomorrow say "I love Jesus" whereas you unfortunately cannot just pray away your condition. Does that mean its more legitimate to fuck around with me?

It turns out having an optional set of beliefs that conflicts with a non-optional aspect of your entire existence is on a different level than a non-optional aspect of your entire existence. Hard to imagine, huh. I wonder what should be more important to protect in an office policy, let's think about this.

Next thing I know you'll be telling me people are born Republicans.

Considering where I live going outside would expose to far more right wing bullshit then on the interwebs. Also is possibly a bit of irony in that I don't like to go out because I need a safe space away from people.

I ..... can you not understand metaphor?

Protests aren't supposed to injure people, protests aren't supposed to look like a pyromaniacs wet dream (or would it be pyromaniac dry dream, probably wouldn't like a wet dream), and protests damn sure aren't supposed to turn into a riot. I question how effective a protest is when the people protesting FUCKING NAZIS, like actual Hitler saluting Nazis and not just anyone who disagrees with me Nazis, and a CHILD MOLESTER come out looking like the bad guys. I mean thats pretty fucking stupid and not to put a too fine of a point on it, hurts teh cause people are protesting.

I like how people like you always sidestep the issue of the many protests that turned to riots in history, that did affect change. No, no, it always hurts the protests, absolutes are absolutes.

It's always convenient if you frame historical events you don't like out of the picture.

Yeah, it's ideal if a protest doesn't turn to violence, but reality often isn't so ideal is it? Maybe instead of sympathizing more with the child molester, you should sympathize more with the protesters who felt like violence is the only way? Maybe you should learn why they began to view it like that? Just a thought, might be too difficult for a proud member of the mindless middle like you but just a thought.

[Simon_Jester]

Joun_Lord:

Fuckit.

You know what the best example I can think of is a 'safe space' as the word is actually meant by the people who invented its use?

The teacher's lounge at the school where I teach.

I've nothing against a safe space in general or divided spaces when its actually being used to keep people safe or allow people of a group to be themselves. I'd have to be a hypocrite to say I don't enjoy the benefits of keeping myself removed from the rest of human kind as often as possible, I'm not exactly a people person. Whats more I get severe anxiety around people, start hyper ventilating, even go through some symptoms of nausea and chest pains. Someone touches me I freak out, someone wants to shake my hand I feel like I am being forced to touch lava. So I understand the need for a personal hug box, I understand the need to be in a safe space.

I also understand people of different cultures, races, religions, genders, sexualities, and whatever might need a place to be themselves. Guys need a place to be guys, girls need a place to be girls, so on. A Muslim might not be able to fully express themselves around other religions, a African American might feel uncomfortable fully being themselves around other races. While I'm sure there is some disagreement over that assertion, there is nothing wrong with a place for a people to be themselves.

My problem is when a safe space becomes a place to coddle, to remove themselves not from harm but from anything they don't like. My problem is when a divided space becomes the norm, when its seen as correct to segregate everyone. Its seems like a step back for equality and the free dissemination of ideas among people. You cannot learn if everyone is sequestering themselves away in echo chambers, they cannot see their neighbors and peers if everyone is separated into their own little group. Does nothing to create understanding, to create common ground.

See the thing is, Joun Lord, the stuff you talk about in that last paragraph happens a lot more often in the imaginations of people who listen to the right wing than it does in real life.

[I'm not saying 'you are this or that.' I'm saying 'right wing pundits talk about this like it's a real problem, and get everyone to worry about it being a problem, a lot more than it IS a problem.']

In real life, this is just NOT the problem, to the point where spending thousands of words arguing over it is basically just a way of throwing up a big smoke screen to conceal other problems.

The fundamental problem is that there are two entirely separate categories of things going on in the political realm. One is the 'discourse,' the exchange of ideas and shared efforts to discuss what is going on in society. The other is people actively doing stuff that hurts other people, and trying to MAKE the entire world be their personal hugbox. The first one isn't a problem. The second one really, really is.

Thing is, the real problem? People trying to reshape the world in ways that force everyone else to comply with their notion of what a 'nice, safe' place free of 'unwanted' thigns looks like, all the time, forever? Yeah. Minority groups basically have no meaningful, significant, relevant way to do it on any scale that matters.

But the most asinine faction of the majority can and does want this, often. In many cases (like Dragon Angel was talking about) the world actually used to work that way. As in, fifty years ago the whole world was one big hugbox for homophobes, and there was no place they ever had to go where their beliefs would be challenged. Try to make them step outside that comfort zone of believing gay people don't exist, and they would, with the full power of the law behind them, try to 'fix' that... by making the gay people cease to exist.

That's a world we realistically have to fear living in. Because that actually happened. Because people on the far right-most 10-20% of the population have a very hard time telling the difference between "being oppressed" and "not winning literally everything forever." Conversely, they have a hard time telling the difference between "not oppressing others" and "losing everything forever."

...
...

But a great deal of the very real potential for harm that comes about when people try to make the whole world a far right hugbox that is "safe" for them to be bigoted or cruel, where they don't have to look at the poor being ground into dirt and where they can pretend sexual minorities are evil demonic perverts... Yeah, that potential for harm gets ignored or overlooked, in favor of this big smoke screen of "but what if the minorities go too far trying to get rights and protections!? Oh no! Think of what could happen then!"

[The Romulan Republic]

Ultimately, the "Alt. Right" and its like oppose "safe spaces" for the simple reason that they don't want women, minorities, or their ideological opponents to have anywhere where they are safe.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the key insight is that they really do have this hardcoded expectation that the whole world is their version of a 'safe space.' Because sixty years ago, it was.

[ray245]

Ultimately, the "Alt. Right" and its like oppose "safe spaces" for the simple reason that they don't want women, minorities, or their ideological opponents to have anywhere where they are safe.

This is in part due to safe spaces tends to be places where the majority becomes the minority.

[Elheru Aran]

Ultimately, the "Alt. Right" and its like oppose "safe spaces" for the simple reason that they don't want women, minorities, or their ideological opponents to have anywhere where they are safe.

This is in part due to safe spaces tends to be places where the majority becomes the minority.

...that's kind of the point of safe spaces, dude. Well, not entirely, but did you read Simon's post about safe spaces just a few posts up-thread? That pretty much well defined it.

[ray245]

...that's kind of the point of safe spaces, dude. Well, not entirely, but did you read Simon's post about safe spaces just a few posts up-thread? That pretty much well defined it.

I know. I am just pointing out that there is a social dynamic that makes some people feel pressured regardless of time period. A number of people who are used to being the majority can feel frightened in a vastly different social group as the minority, regardless of whether it's a safe space or simply a different country.

There are people that ended up hardening their stance/sense of tribalism as a result of this feeling. It's about feeling alienated.

[Highlord Laan]

Why is anything that is related to national infrastructure and interest so shitty in the US?

Healthcare is in shambles, physical infrastructure like roads and bridges are a mess, education is pretty much all messed up as well. It just feel like the US is rather inefficient at spending money.

As per the usual when it comes to such things falling apart, you can thank the motherfucking boomers. An entire generation that made use of the American social and economic infrastructure to improve their lives, then deliberately fucked up everything their parents had built so they wouldn't have to pay for it when it was their children's turn.

[Simon_Jester]

As per the usual when it comes to such things falling apart, you can thank the motherfucking boomers. An entire generation that made use of the American social and economic infrastructure to improve their lives, then deliberately fucked up everything their parents had built so they wouldn't have to pay for it when it was their children's turn.

To be fair, it was more like "a large minority of that generation has been deliberately fucking things up, and another large minority doesn't give a rat's ass and/or doesn't understand what's going on well enough to do anything meaningful about it." But... yeah, pretty much this.

...that's kind of the point of safe spaces, dude. Well, not entirely, but did you read Simon's post about safe spaces just a few posts up-thread? That pretty much well defined it.

I know. I am just pointing out that there is a social dynamic that makes some people feel pressured regardless of time period. A number of people who are used to being the majority can feel frightened in a vastly different social group as the minority, regardless of whether it's a safe space or simply a different country.

There are people that ended up hardening their stance/sense of tribalism as a result of this feeling. It's about feeling alienated.

In other words, it's about feeling the same pain they've been (in some cases deliberately) inflicting on others all their lives... And not liking it.

I can comprehend that this view exists, without being very sympathetic. The Golden Rule is a pretty solid ethical principle, after all. While I understand it's not entirely instinctive in human nature to accept that sometimes we will experience the same pains we inflict on others... Basically, people who sneer at the idea of minority 'safe spaces' because of motives like this are on the same level as Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons planning to beat Bart to within an inch of his life because "You made me bleed my own blood!"

So you have successfully psychoanalyzed the problem, and I think we'll all be better off if we can agree that psychoanalyzing a bad behavior is not the same as excusing it.

[ray245]

In other words, it's about feeling the same pain they've been (in some cases deliberately) inflicting on others all their lives... And not liking it.

I can comprehend that this view exists, without being very sympathetic. The Golden Rule is a pretty solid ethical principle, after all. While I understand it's not entirely instinctive in human nature to accept that sometimes we will experience the same pains we inflict on others... Basically, people who sneer at the idea of minority 'safe spaces' because of motives like this are on the same level as Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons planning to beat Bart to within an inch of his life because "You made me bleed my own blood!"

So you have successfully psychoanalyzed the problem, and I think we'll all be better off if we can agree that psychoanalyzing a bad behavior is not the same as excusing it.

Oh, I'm not excusing it. I just don't think it's possible to convince many of those people otherwise. If you are dealing with people that are scared and frustrated, you're probably not going to convince them to change their thinking via logic alone.

I think it is safe to say, many people whether they are opposed to safe spaces or not, do feel more comfortable when they are among their ethnic groups/communities/fellow nationals. Those that are in the majorities probably feel less of a need to move out of their "comfort zones". Minorities, on the other hand, would have learned how to deal with that, simply because they are in the minority. In other words, people have to be conditioned to be used to the notion of safe spaces.