Do you support SafeSpace zones in colleges?

[dead0man]

Safe spaces are, as far as I've always been told and understood, simply places where people who constantly take sh*t from society (say, women, blacks, LGBT people) can be among themselves so they can take a break for a couple minutes from taking sh*t from society. They're presumably very easy and cheap to set up (it's not like there's any university campus that doesn't have a couple rooms to spare), and don't infringe on the sacro-sanct rights of straight white guys (free speech or otherwise) in any way.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

(and by the way, saying "you're not in college, why do you care?" is a pretty stupid argument if you think about it for more than 2 seconds evergreen....give it a try sometime)

'rya confusing me with crabcake? i'm honoured

How did he find out that I'm your alternative personality?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And nah dead man it is extremely funny that adults have opinions on student politics. It's like becoming intensely interested in the politics of a local council in a small town you don't live in; or interested in the workplace politics of somewhere you don't work at.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

No (doesn't believe people should be wrapped in cotton wool or bubbles)

[Mr. Reactionary]

And nah dead man it is extremely funny that adults have opinions on student politics. It's like becoming intensely interested in the politics of a local council in a small town you don't live in; or interested in the workplace politics of somewhere you don't work at.

Or American politics if you're European.

[RogueBeaver]

No (doesn't believe people should be wrapped in cotton wool or bubbles)

[IceAgeComing]

Safe spaces are, as far as I've always been told and understood, simply places where people who constantly take sh*t from society (say, women, blacks, LGBT people) can be among themselves so they can take a break for a couple minutes from taking sh*t from society. They're presumably very easy and cheap to set up (it's not like there's any university campus that doesn't have a couple rooms to spare), and don't infringe on the sacro-sanct rights of straight white guys (free speech or otherwise) in any way.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

I don't understand why a very good description of what a safe space is responded to in such a condescending manner; generally I would expect you to respond with an alternative definition if you disagreed...

During first few years of uni, I volunteered for a local LGBT youth organisation in order to help out a friend who was involved in its leadership (the joy of youth led organisations...).  It was aimed towards "young people" (legally defined here as 14-25; this group generally had people from 14 to 19 at it) and was designed to both facilitate the activism work that the organisation did about campaigning for rights for LGBTQ people while also providing services for local young people.  Lots of those people either weren't publicly out yet or had unsupportive parents or family surroundings, so we provided a space that let people let their hair down and be gay or be trans openly for a bit without being judged (well being judged on that specifically, there was still lots of judging about... other stuff).  We provided an important service that made life a hell of a lot more bearable for a lot of people; I don't see how what we did was "denying them the reality of the world" or anything like that - they had to face up to that for all but that one three hour session a week; I don't see how giving them somewhere safe to decompress for a small amount of time hurt anyone.  This group received funding from the Scottish government and met on council property (that we rented), in the eyes of some people that seems to mean that we'd have had to have welcomed people who came in to denegrate people and make a more toxic atmosphere: when if that had ever happened all we'd have done is ask them to leave and call the police if they didn't.

The problem is that lots of people either take everything the press says about this sort of stuff, or seem to think that "freedom of speech" seems to mean that private bodies need to give everyone a platform when that's not the case.  An example that happened here was a comedian who had their event cancelled because they'd not sold enough tickets for it contacted the papers about how it'd been cancelled because of "safe space" stuff, which led to them getting an article written about it on the front page of the bloody Guardian.  People just seem to believe everything they need about this sort of stuff for some reason...  Someone mentioned earlier about people trying to get a Milo Yanarseholeis talk cancelled and I don't see anything wrong with that; petitioning a private body to cancel a room booking is something that you are perfectly entitled to do.  There seems to be this weird change of definition of "freedom of speech" recently where people seem to expect others to let them have a platform to speak on and that's not the way that it works: a university or a television station or any other private institution cannot deny anyone a platform, and that others aren't allowed to protest them getting one.  Its not just right wing groups as well: we had a very small movement for a while to try and get the Socialist Workers Party off campus by getting them deregistered as a society (and therefore privileged access to uni facilities) after the whole rape coverup thing came out: they would have still had the same freedom of speech as they ever had; the right to sell their bloody papers or advertise their bloody petitions as they always insisted on doing, its just that they wouldn't have been able to use university property to do so without spending more money and having to wait until registered societies had a pick of the rooms.  I don't understand where this change in the meaning of what freedom of speech is - my analogy is that if you invite someone to dinner and they start being offensive to your guests, you are allowed to ask them to leave and not violate their "freedom of speech" because they are on private property and that right only ever applies to government limitation of freedom of speech.

Also as someone who was a student last year and hopefully will be again in September; student politics is incredibly dumb; which should not surprise anyone who's ever been a student.  I'm into my politics and that; but the only student politicsy things that I did was vote for offices in our SRC and sports union (my uni was odd, it had four different student bodies that are usually one in other unis: the SRC was the politics part; the sports union bit was in charge of uni sports and working with the university in terms of facilities in the gym and stuff like that; and we had two student unions which were what you'd expect student unions to be, both of which were private members clubs and technically not part of the uni) and sign a petition to get the SRC President sacked after he decided to renege on a pledge he'd made when standing for election and support English students paying £9,000/year fees - it seemed like uni management actually had a better position on fees than him which should not happen); and that's more than 95% of students actually do!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

I don't understand why a very good description of what a safe space is responded to in such a condescending manner; generally I would expect you to respond with an alternative definition if you disagreed...

I think the condescension was directed at the previous poster's condescension.

[Maxwell]

I'm not against there being SafeSpace zones in existance, but it's not an issue I especially care about. This is one of those things I still have a strain of libertarianism about - individual colleges and universities should make that choice.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

And nah dead man it is extremely funny that adults have opinions on student politics. It's like becoming intensely interested in the politics of a local council in a small town you don't live in; or interested in the workplace politics of somewhere you don't work at.

Or American politics if you're European.

Touché, but American politics affects me and many people. The decisions that student politicians make are about as likely to effect me as the Kiribati elections.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Safe spaces are, as far as I've always been told and understood, simply places where people who constantly take sh*t from society (say, women, blacks, LGBT people) can be among themselves so they can take a break for a couple minutes from taking sh*t from society. They're presumably very easy and cheap to set up (it's not like there's any university campus that doesn't have a couple rooms to spare), and don't infringe on the sacro-sanct rights of straight white guys (free speech or otherwise) in any way.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

Did I trigger you? I'm sorry.

[dead0man]

Safe spaces are, as far as I've always been told and understood, simply places where people who constantly take sh*t from society (say, women, blacks, LGBT people) can be among themselves so they can take a break for a couple minutes from taking sh*t from society. They're presumably very easy and cheap to set up (it's not like there's any university campus that doesn't have a couple rooms to spare), and don't infringe on the sacro-sanct rights of straight white guys (free speech or otherwise) in any way.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

I don't understand why a very good description of what a safe space is responded to in such a condescending manner; generally I would expect you to respond with an alternative definition if you disagreed...

I started writing a couple different responses but kept editing them to be nicer and actually discussing the topic (instead of the pointless insult, but then I realized I was just restating what I had just funking said (and Tony ignored) so out came the le sigh in frustration.

And is Crabby really doubling down on the opinion that people shouldn't have an opinion or discuss things that don't affect them.  How very strange coming from...well, anyone.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

One can have opinions, but people here seem actually distressed about what is essentially an irrelevant hobby for students.

[dead0man]

Who is acting distressed?  How could you even tell?  We're just typing here.  Perhaps you're projecting again?

[SATW]

I agree with Dead0Man's comments here. It's ridiculous to state that one shouldn't voice an opinion on something that may or may not affect them.

Student government politics, and how it is currently run, feeds into multiple larger themes about how our society functions as a whole. Also, considering student governments, in many cases, are funded by taxpayers, I think is is very relevant to question their logic when need be.

Two examples, for me, where this type of criticism is not only warranted by morally needed (both public universities)

- Like when the University of Minnesota's student government failed to pass a resolution to honor 9/11 victims.
- or when UCLA's student government decided it'd be a good idea to discriminate against a Jewish student because of her ethnicity and religion.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/16/u-minnesota-student-government-votes-against-annual-911-ceremony-some-didnt-want-to-spread-islamaphobia/ (Minnesota story)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/debate-on-a-jewish-student-at-ucla.html?_r=0 (UCLA story)

The former's ridiculous actions were directly fueled by some weird campaign to ensure "protection" in "safe spaces." Not the first (and likely not the last) idiotic decision to come from Minnesota's student gov't.

The latter is a case of SJW-extremism gone completely wrong. In fact, I'd argue this is an instance, at UCLA, where the so-called "right to a safe space" for Jewish students was violated.

But, of course, SJW's don't care about Jewish plight. Only selected groups of people matter to them. This is exactly why I am against safe spaces and that extreme culture that comes with that idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Safe spaces are, as far as I've always been told and understood, simply places where people who constantly take sh*t from society (say, women, blacks, LGBT people) can be among themselves so they can take a break for a couple minutes from taking sh*t from society. They're presumably very easy and cheap to set up (it's not like there's any university campus that doesn't have a couple rooms to spare), and don't infringe on the sacro-sanct rights of straight white guys (free speech or otherwise) in any way.

Maybe I'm wrong (I'm sure Evergreen could provide a more detailed explanation anyway), but if I'm right people who are voting no are either bigoted dicks or (like you apparently) morons who have opinions on things they don't know.

le sigh

I don't understand why a very good description of what a safe space is responded to in such a condescending manner; generally I would expect you to respond with an alternative definition if you disagreed...

I started writing a couple different responses but kept editing them to be nicer and actually discussing the topic (instead of the pointless insult, but then I realized I was just restating what I had just funking said (and Tony ignored) so out came the le sigh in frustration.

What you had just funking said had no relevance to the topic of discussion whatsoever.

[SWE]

Yes (not an easily offended infant)

[Human]

No

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No. It's for retarded people. Period.

So we could regularly expect to find you in one?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I support them in a private context (allowing an LGBT student group a room to meet, for example) but if my college were to turn over the Student Union to any group during regular hours, I'd be opposed. Voted no because most groups demanding such a location usually end up making insane demands.