Support NeoGAF

[Give War A Chance]

I completely have missed the point on "safe spaces," "trigger warnings," and the like. (Especially on college campuses, but that's a different thing.)

I wish I had more to add to this discussion that my, apparent, blissful ignorance.

EDIT: Is a safe space just a place where people treat others with dignity and respect, regardless of race, gender, creed, religion, etc. etc.? If so, I'm fine with that, especially on the internet where the terrible is brought to the forefront because of perceived anonymity. Comment sections and message boards should be moderated to ensure that constructive discussion is taking place. Not shitposts for pages.

 

[Sanctuary]

You're the one who is making the argument! You're literally espousing the alt-right bs about what safe spaces are and literally claimed that minorities are trying to censor the world. You said that.

Holy shit. I never said that. At all. And for your information, I'm not "espousing" anything. This is what's been all over the news and social media for almost a year now, and "safe space" wasn't even in my lexicon until last year.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/harvard-prof-students-stay-home-if-you-want-safe-space-opposing-ideas

So I guess everyone that posts or agrees with that in what they are turning into are alt-right or some shit?

Do you now deny that you said it? You are making the claim that a "slippery slope" will lead to "censoring the world". Your warped view on what safe spaces are/buying into the alt-right view of it and claiming that criticizing bigots = censoring the world is insanely telling on your positions here. If you want to now deny you made these claims when you very clearly did by all means do. Explain yourself. You're the one who went for the hyperbole of "censor the world". Not me..

I didn't say that either. You grossly manipulated what I actually said, and what was inferred for whatever the fuck reason. Seriously, you're just looking for something that isn't even there. Is this just a reflex?

Regardless, this is getting ridiculous, so I'm done.

 

[letmetrythisname]

I love video games!

 

[Dalibor68]

I addressed your argument about societal importance and the institute of marriage. If we look at it from a historical perspective or a cultural one (as there are numerous cultural views on marriage itself-the anglo-view of it is outdated by today's modern standard even): Your Argument Holds No Water. Being in/exposed to cultural anthropology, I can confidently say your argument does not fit in either context. Pretending that it does just is something I cannot abide by.

It literally is the right-wing argument against homosexual relationships. One of many, to be honest. You are attempting to justify their cultural-view that is used to devalue millions of people and their relationship. Given how prevalent it is I sincerely have to question how you could not know this.

And as someone who's had to occupy himself for weeks with marital law, civil union law, surrounding legal policies and the historical documents of the legislators: No, you are wrong. "Love" is and was simply not the designated intention, the institute of marriage with all its features is to keep society healthy in a myriad of ways. At this point I think you're just throwing "right-wing" around to shift the discussion back away towards emotions. I don't think we will reach an agreement.

 

[MikeyB]

safe spaces have zero impact on those not wanting to partake in them, and yet for whatever reason, they're the most vocal people when it comes to no wanting them. same is true for gay marriage rights...the people opposed are the people it does not effect in any way shape or form, and yet the people it does effect benefit greatly from it.

I'm not sure about the long term benefits of safe spaces in general but pretty sure that all people are affected by safe spaces.

Designating a space as safe for group x does affect all non-x. One, they typically aren't allowed, so it raises questions about why am I being excluded (though the answer is often obvious). Two, it implies that other spaces are somehow "not safe."(if it doesn't, the term is basically nonsense). This may threaten non-x but also creates motivation to change the unsafe spaces and non-x will feel threatened by that.

My concern with safe spaces is pretty narrow. It is really the extent to which specific groups feel the need to make the "non-safe" space "safer". I have no issue with LGTBQ working to combat harassment and bigotry (though microaggressions and that sort of talk seems iffy). The same goes for women, the disabled, people of colour, and other groups subject to serious prejudice. I support the work to bring issues to light and correct them.

I loathe any efforts to silence those with different views rather than engage them. It is that stuff that I see as nonsense and I see a lot of that attitude online in a line of argument that the views of a "cishet" are not worth considering. Search cishet on twitter and see the sentiments popping up. That view and a certain take on safe spaces that fosters that view are what I see to be counterproductive in the long run.

Stephen Fry's general critique of safe spaces as infantilising seems compelling, but I don't know enough about it to say much.

To the extent that Destructoid is saying this isn't a safe space and we are not going to censor views, I really don't have a problem with it. But the step of calling it a safe space is bizarre. It suggests protecting them from criticism. Let the bigots speak but let them be called out on their bullshit.

 

[Ekai]

Holy shit. I never said that. At all. And for your information, I'm not "espousing" anything. This is what's been all over the news and social media for almost a year now, and "safe space" wasn't even in my lexicon until last year.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/harvard-prof-students-stay-home-if-you-want-safe-space-opposing-ideas

So I guess everyone that posts or agrees with that in what they are turning into are alt-right or some shit?



I didn't say that either. You grossly manipulated what I actually said, and what was inferred for whatever the fuck reason. Seriously, you're just looking for something that isn't even there. Is this just a reflex?

Regardless, this is getting ridiculous, so I'm done.

You literally said it would lead to censoring the world. I haven't twisted ANY of your words. That's your post on the previous page. And numerous posters are confronting about your buying into the right-wing view of safe-spaces. If you want to deny what literally just happened over the last few posts, by all means go ahead. We can all see it however.

And as someone who's had to occupy himself for weeks with marital law, civil union law, surrounding legal policies and the historical documents of the legislators: No, you are wrong. "Love" is simply not the designated intention, the institute of marriage with all its features is to keep society healthy in a myriad of ways. At this point I think you're just throwing "right-wing" around to shift the discussion back away towards emotions.

As someone who has studied history/a large variety of cultures: No. You're insanely in the wrong here. Marriage has existed throughout time in so many more ways than your insanely short-sighted view of it. It doesn't even fit with how it's commonly viewed in modern society (depending on where you're coming from, of course).

And I'm not shifting anything. I'm telling you what your argument is. Right-wingers espouse it in order to attempt to deride and devalue homosexual relationships. How you could not know this astounds the mind since it's so front and center to their world-view.


And yes, I don't think we will reach agreement.

 

[Dyson Industries]

Holy shit. I never said that. At all.

You also can't censor the world, which is inevitably what this kind of demand leads to attempting, after the worst offenders are dealt with.

I don't think he's coming back.

 

[Ekai]

I don't think he's coming back.

Given he sourced a far-right-wing website in his argument, I believe you're correct there.

I completely have missed the point on "safe spaces," "trigger warnings," and the like. (Especially on college campuses, but that's a different thing.)

I wish I had more to add to this discussion that my, apparent, blissful ignorance.

EDIT: Is a safe space just a place where people treat others with dignity and respect, regardless of race, gender, creed, religion, etc. etc.? If so, I'm fine with that, especially on the internet where the terrible is brought to the forefront because of perceived anonymity. Comment sections and message boards should be moderated to ensure that constructive discussion is taking place. Not shitposts for pages.

That's the general idea, yes. And in regards to your edit reason, I don't think it's awful to try to understand.

 

[Dalibor68]

As someone who has studied history/a large variety of cultures: No. You're insanely in the wrong here. Marriage has existed throughout time in so many more ways than your insanely short-sighted view of it. It doesn't even fit with how it's commonly viewed in modern society (depending on where you're coming from, of course).

And I'm not shifting anything. I'm telling you what your argument is. Right-wingers espouse it in order to attempt to deride and devalue homosexual relationships. How you could not know this astounds the mind since it's so front and center to their world-view.

I mean you can literally read the historical legislative materials and the analogue discussions and commentaries to see the intention.

And again, I don't care who used what. Slogans and phrases are constantly abused and misused by everyone. There is zero racist, right-wing or whatever else connotations to the fact that man+man or woman+woman alone can not reproduce and thus one can argue that an institute in part specifically created to encourage reproduction would not apply to those groups. Treating different things different is not discrimination. Read the definition of Equality before the law.

And as I've said multiple times now, that very argument in the paragraph above does indeed not hold much water anymore nowadays because of the technological advantage making it possible for gay couples to actually have (biological) children. Thus there is no more "different things" so different treatment is not justified anymore either. Yet someone arguing in the way I described is in most cases probably ill informed about the current state of reproduction/fertilisation technology and not a bigoted right-wing homophobic boogyman and as such should not simply be pushed into the same box.

In any case, since we are moving in circles and agree that we will not reach an agreement it is probably better to leave this discussion be. At least however we had a temperate enough discussion, so that's something at least.

 

[KORNdoggy]

I loathe any efforts to silence those with different views rather than engage them.

i'd understand that way of thinking if the people you were talking about were saying things that worth engaging in. these are people who have their minds made up, you're not going to convince them that their racist/sexist/homophobic attitude is wrong. a stupid person is harder to convince than a smart one, and even that's a challenge. it's a lost cause. so frankly i'd rather simply silence them. they add nothing, and bring nothing to the table in regards to discussion, or debate. they're purpose it to provoke and insult.

 

[Ekai]

I mean you can literally read the historical legislative materials and the analogue discussions and commentaries to see the intention.

And again, I don't care who used what. Slogans and phrases are constantly abused and misused by everyone. There is zero racist, right-wing or whatever else connotations to the fact that man+man or woman+woman alone can not reproduce and thus one can argue that an institute in part specifically created to encourage reproduction would not apply to those groups. Treating different things different is not discrimination. Read the definition of Equality before the law.

And as I've said multiple times now, that very argument in the paragraph above does indeed not hold much water anymore nowadays because of the technological advantage making it possible for gay couples to actually have (biological) children. Thus there is no more "different things" so different treatment is not justified anymore either. Yet someone arguing in the way I described is in most cases probably ill informed about the current state of reproduction/fertilisation technology and not a bigoted right-wing homophobic boogyman and as such should not simply be pushed into the same box.

In any case, since we are moving in circles and agree that we will not reach an agreement it is probably better to leave this discussion be. At least however we had a temperate enough discussion, so that's something at least.

You can spend time learning about the various historical/cultural perspectives on marriage too, if you want.

Treating another human being as lesser because their relationship is deemed to not have enough value is literally inequality.

If you admit to it not holding much water then why even discuss it? I sincerely don't get that. And in my and many other individuals experiences: no one is approaching it from the way you are trying to. And even the way you are trying to still results in a devaluing of homosexual relationships til they are deemed "acceptable" by a reaching standard. It falls right into what the bigots espouse on the matter in regards to why the relationship isn't valuable.

And yes, we're going nowhere.

 

[Dragon Puncher]

We obviously need a safe space for the people sending death threats and using racist and misogynist language. Can't you see it's all just in good fun!?

Wait a second, that already exists.. It's called 4chan.

 

[MikeyB]

i'd understand that way of thinking if the people you were talking about were saying things that worth engaging in. these are people who have their minds made up, you're not going to convince them that their racist/sexist/homophobic attitude is wrong. a stupid person is harder to convince than a smart one, and even that's a challenge. it's a lost cause. so frankly i'd rather simply silence them. they add nothing, and bring nothing to the table in regards to discussion, or debate. they're purpose it to provoke and insult.

I'd go with Mill and support having bad ideas linger simply so it is plain to see how bad they are and how only dogmatists can support such baloney. I'm also an optimist and think that not all bigots have minds that cannot be changed. (Saw it happen with my grandparents).

 

[letmetrythisname]

i'd understand that way of thinking if the people you were talking about were saying things that worth engaging in. these are people who have their minds made up, you're not going to convince them that their racist/sexist/homophobic attitude is wrong. a stupid person is harder to convince than a smart one, and even that's a challenge. it's a lost cause. so frankly i'd rather simply silence them. they add nothing, and bring nothing to the table in regards to discussion, or debate. they're purpose it to provoke and insult.

I see where you're coming from, but people can have beliefs you don't agree while also engaging in conversation.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Ekai has a habit of equating being critical of PC culture to being alt-right or having "alt-right sensibilities", which by now is one of the most bullshit nothing phrases I know of. When you accuse someone else of being the farthest opposite on the political spectrum from yourself you establish that you clearly don't want to come to some kind of compromise or agreement with them, which can be very frustrating.

Regardless, this article is trash satire or not and I've discussed before how I think safe spaces should be allowed and even promoted provided they don't interfere with education, workplace productivity, etc.

 

[Ekai]

Ekai has a habit of equating being critical of PC culture to being alt-right or having "alt-right sensibilities", which by now is one of the most bullshit nothing phrases I know of. When you accuse someone else of being the farthest opposite on the political spectrum from yourself you establish that you clearly don't want to come to some kind of compromise or agreement with them, which can be very frustrating..

I'm calling things out for what they are. And the critiques I'm presenting are about literally what Sanctury (and what everyone else was pointing out in regards to their buying the right-wing view. not to mention MRC IS a far-right-wing website. to deny any of these basic realities makes me question you quite a bit) and the point Dalibor espouses literally fits in with the right-wing view on it. Ignorance on that does make me suspect given the prevalence of the "reproduction argument" utilized by the right-wing to attempt to deny equal rights to LGB individuals. I will have to take them at face value but frankly speaking, that is a real argument by the right-wing. To deny that also makes me question where you're coming from.

Alt-right isn't a "bullshit nothing phrase". It's the most fitting way to describe the very issue at hand and the kinds of people that fall under that umbrella.

Given I've never seen you before, I'd almost place betting money on you being a stalker/from voat or some other place. Regardless, you clearly have issue with me calling things for what they are. Not to mention your sincere use of PC-culture (which is such a meaningless empty phrase espoused by the right-wing) and deriding of "alt-right" which only makes me further question things.

Either-way, sorry, not sorry if I don't want to come to agreement with bigots/bigoted statements and ask that they explain themselves.

 

[letmetrythisname]

Given I've never seen you before, I'd almost place betting money on you being a stalker/from voat or some other place. Regardless, you clearly have issue with me calling things for what they are. Not to mention your sincere use of PC-culture (which is such a meaningless empty phrase espoused by the right-wing) and deriding of "alt-right" which only makes me further question things.

Either-way, sorry, not sorry if I don't want to come to agreement with bigots/bigoted statements and ask that they explain themselves.

So is everyone who disagrees with you an evil stalking agent of the alt-right?

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

I'm calling things out for what they are. And the critiques I'm presenting are about literally what Sanctury (and what everyone else was pointing out in regards to their buying the right-wing view. not to mention MRC IS a far-right-wing website. to deny any of these basic realities makes me question you quite a bit) and the point Dalibor espouses literally fits in with the right-wing view on it. Ignorance on that does make me suspect given the prevalence of the "reproduction argument" utilized by the right-wing to attempt to deny equal rights to LGB individuals. I will have to take them at face value but frankly speaking, that is a real argument by the right-wing. To deny that also makes me question where you're coming from.

Alt-right isn't a "bullshit nothing phrase". It's the most fitting way to describe the very issue at hand and the kinds of people that fall under that umbrella.

Given I've never seen you before, I'd almost place betting money on you being a stalker/from voat or some other place. Regardless, you clearly have issue with me calling things for what they are. Either-way, sorry, not sorry if I don't want to come to agreement with bigots/bigoted statements and ask that they explain themselves.

Holy shit, that ad hominem out in full force boys! Thank you so much for proving my point.

No, PC culture is not just exposused by the right wing. But wait, your the guy that believes South Park is alt-right. Of course.

 

[Ekai]

So is everyone who disagrees with you an evil stalking agent of the alt-right?

Nah. But this person claims to know me and how I argue when they very clearly are disingenuously painting the situation to fit their own needs. Not to mention they're a poster with less than 600 posts who I have literally never seen til now. That they make such statements (and also use one of the most meaningless right-wing buzzwords like PC Culture) does draw suspicion on my part. Following one around and claiming to know them literally equates to being stalkerish at best. How you do not get that when it's as plain as day is weird to me.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Nah. But this person claims to know me and how I argue when they very clearly are disingenuously painting the situation to fit their own needs. Not to mention they're a poster with less than 600 posts who I have literally never seen til now. That they make such statements (and also use one of the most meaningless right-wing buzzwords like PC Culture) does draw suspicion on my part. Following one around and claiming to know them literally equates to being stalkerish at best. How you do not get that when it's as plain as day is weird to me.

No, I've been on the same threads as you man! Look at my post history. I've called you out on this before!

You're looking childish and more and more proving my point by going after my character like this you realize that right?

And how fucking ironic that you say that you claim im saying I know you after you do ad hominem attacks on me. I never claimed to know you. Im calling you out on your dogmatic argumentative style.

 

[Shai-Tan]

There are different layers to it. First political polarisation which causes people to spend too much time online talking about how horrible the other group is using selective evidence, usually extreme outliers. So the liberal left, libertarians, and conservatives have become worried about exaggerated forms of concepts like safe spaces or sacred progressive ideology (e.g. see Jonathan Haidt) and left progressives over-interpret racism/sexism/etc into a "politics of indignation" which is basically a form of demonization of the other on behalf of a "victim" group.

Both sides don't understand the concept of civility, which requires more than manners, it's also about perspective taking and following the principle of charity (you should be thinking about the best form of an idea not trying to knock down the half baked opinions on the internet). To get there we might try to safeguard against motivated reasoning and tribal thinking, to consider that some of our differences in interpretation of contemporary political issues are a reflection of different weights on values that have blind spots on both sides. e.g. with regard to safe spaces progressives privilege equality of outcome and freedom-from sleights (which can become a kind of groupthink closed to alternative explanations in ambiguous situations), liberals and libertarians privilege freedom-to engage in a marketplace of ideas (which can take the form of a laissez faire attitude that anyone should be able to say anything as if social convention and basic decency didn't exist)

 

[Ekai]

Holy shit, that ad hominem out in full force boys! Thank you so much for proving my point.

No, PC culture is not just exposused by the right wing. But wait, your the guy that believes South Park is alt-right. Of course.

You should really learn what an ad hom is but great job not paying the slightest bit of attention to the topic at hand and getting salty over my critique of the right-wing. Also good job not responding to my argument because you have no counter to present. Also, good job misgendering me(which I would question if you did on purpose or not considering you more or less admit to following me around). Also good job on the deflection that has nothing to do with the topic. Also good job on conveniently avoiding how you're using meaningless buzzwords yourself (that come from the right-wing). Also etc. etc. etc.

No, I've been on the same threads as you man! Look at my post history. I've called you out on this before!

So you admit to following me around and want to derail the thread with this argument? I sincerely do not recall ever seeing you before but regardless this is a pointless argument as all you're doing is following me around in an attempt to muddle the conversation. That much is obvious given how much space you devoted to it in your initial provoking shitpost. Which is what it is. You're shitposting about me calling out right-wing arguments for what they are. If you don't like that short-hand, it's not my problem.

 

[MikeyB]

So you admit to following me around and want to derail the thread with this argument? I sincerely do not recall ever seeing you before but regardless this is a pointless argument as all you're doing is following me around in an attempt to muddle the conversation.

Or he is interested in the same topics and wants to take part in a discussion about them...

 

[Ekai]

Or he is interested in the same topics and wants to take part in a discussion about them...

Given they literally entered the topic to shit-post about me as the main part of their post, I have a hard time believing that. The shitpost is as clear as day. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. They only wish to derail.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

You should really learn what an ad hom is but great job not paying the slightest bit of attention to the topic at hand and getting salty over my critique of the right-wing. Also good job not responding to my argument because you have no counter to present. Also, good job misgendering me(which I would question if you did on purpose or not considering you more or less admit to following me around). Also good job on the deflection that has nothing to do with the topic. Also good job on conveniently avoiding how you're using meaningless buzzwords yourself (that come from the right-wing). Also etc. etc. etc.



So you admit to following me around and want to derail the thread with this argument? I sincerely do not recall ever seeing you before but regardless this is a pointless argument as all you're doing is following me around in an attempt to muddle the conversation. That much is obvious given how much space you devoted to it in your initial provoking shitpost. Which is what it is. You're shitposting about me calling out right-wing arguments for what they are. If you don't like that short-hand, it's not my problem.

I have my argument and my stance on the topic right in my first post.

I have class now but your responses have been gold (taking offense to me using man, a throwaway word you need to want to be offended by) and proves my point. Please continue acussing me of stalking you.

In conclusion, I *gasp* more or less agree with you but your argumentative style is a major turn off to me and prevents compromise and agreement with others.

 

[KORNdoggy]

I see where you're coming from, but people can have beliefs you don't agree while also engaging in conversation.

They can. But i don't think we're trying to have safe spaces against people who try to create a civilised discussion with an open mind trying to see why sexism/homophobia/racism is wrong. If that was what we were dealing with it would be much simpler.

Sadly safe spaces are often shelters from the people who are beyond help. Beyond discussion. They have painted an entire group with a brush and nothing will change their minds. And when it comes to attempting to move towards a world where those sorts of comments don't exist, you have to start somewhere. Giving bigots the freedom to spread bigotry isn't moving anything forward. Its alowing hate to spread amoung people incapable of change with zero means to combat it. Wheras censoring it entirely will eventually create a situation were its a waste of time doing it, so they won't. Supressed hate is better than it running rife with no control imo.

 

[Snowybreak]

I have my argument and my stance on the topic right in my first post.

I have class now but your responses have been gold (taking offense to me using man, a throwaway word you need to want to be offended by) and proves my point. Please continue acussing me of stalking you.

The first part of what you posted was not about the discussion, it was about Ekai. The second part was on topic. This is only an observation.

EDIT: Also that edit will not earn you any points among anyone here and it looks incredibly condescending.

 

[Ekai]

I have my argument and my stance on the topic right in my first post.

I have class now but your responses have been gold (taking offense to me using man, a throwaway word you need to want to be offended by) and proves my point. Please continue acussing me of stalking you.

And I refuted your argument for what it was. If you don't want to engage in discussion, you only continue to further prove my point that you want to shitpost. That combined with your open admittance of joy over my critique gives further credence to you wanting to "troll" for your own amusement. You are incapable of engaging and rather want to shitpost about people you don't like for criticizing arguments for what they are. You're going to be called out for it. Especially if you incorrectly throw around fallacies in the first place and use attempted dogpile statements like: "look at this boys!" You're clearly wanting to provoke here and nothing more. You have contributed just about nothing else to this topic.

That combined with your amusement over misgendering me (it was guy, btw, not man but eitherway if you follow me around as you admit to doing, you should probably know my gender-it's really the only reason I'm highlighting it) further makes me question how sincere you desire to be. I didn't express offense over your misgendering of me but that you are most likely doing it on purpose does further lead me to believe you only want to shitpost and provoke.

If you truly and sincerely wish to engage on this further, I would suggest you do so in a far less provoking manner. And perhaps without derailing a topic.

 

[Koren]

Basically its a space where you can't attack someone for say, being gay or trans or black or... you get the picture.

Meaning elsewhere you can?

I must say I also don't get it...

 

[Snowybreak]

Meaning elsewhere you can?

I must say I also don't get it...

It's a place with zero-tolerance for discriminatory beliefs. Nothing more. It is not some anti free speech thing like some make it out to be.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

As a POC i feel safe spaces are very important. Not sure why the people with the most influence and power feel the need to insert themselves into every thing under the sun and make it about themselves :S

 

[Koren]

It's a place with zero-tolerance for discriminatory beliefs. Nothing more. It is not some anti free speech thing like some make it out to be.

As far as I believe in free speach, I think discriminatory talk is unwelcome everywhere, and creating safe places kinda means to me it's ok outside.

Or maybe I don't understand what it cover (saying white men having lesser results in 100 meters dash would be forbidden in a white safe space?)

 

[KORNdoggy]

Meaning elsewhere you can?

I must say I also don't get it...

You must be able to comprehend the idea that you would likely get less hateful comments about being gay in a gay club, then you would anywhere else?

most heterosexual people don't get it because the WORLD is already their safe space. They don't need to look over their shoulder just to hold their partners hand. Safe spaces, however small they may be, give minorities the freedoms and privileges that all non minorities have in their day to day lives...but apparently some people dont even want us to have that :/

 

[Snowybreak]

As far as I believe in free speach, I think discriminatory talk is unwelcome everywhere, and creating safe places kinda means to me it's ok outside.

Or maybe I don't understand what it cover (saying white men having lesser results in 100 meters dash would be forbidden in a white safe space?)

Here's the difference, discriminatory talk happens, and sometimes it's dealt with, sometimes it isn't. This is the idea of having a place where the association or club would meet where there would be ZERO tolerance to bigoted and discriminatory talk.

EDIT: Well fuck me, we've gone a bit off topic here. Someone please bring us back to the original discussion.

 

[Sianos]

You clearly do not get what a safe space even is. Shitstains of humanity that insult others are not providing any worthwhile critique, challenges, etc. etc. etc.

I was being sarcastic and highlighting the irony of simultaneously deriding denotational safe spaces while asking for video games to be - in the misconstrued strawman manner - a safe space away from political messages that might, as Holmes projects, might makes someone feel "challenged, criticized, or less than perfect".

Basically, demonstrating that Holmes himself does not understand what safe spaces are and is projecting his own inability to deal with criticism onto the concept safe spaces for people who suffer daily abuse.

Read this post I made in this thread and give constructive feedback on its efficacy. I think I addressed all of the common false accusations made against the concept of safe spaces and presented the concept in such aanner that demonstrated how most people already agree with what safe spaces in reality actually are.

I understand that people use video games as a mechanism for escapism: sometimes I do as well, and I love to debate. It is indeed true that some people do not want to be a part of a debate at all times, especially when they are considered to be a part of the debate by default because of a trait such as "enjoys video games". I can understand that sometimes people just need a safe space to relax away from the constant societal pressure. Granted, this also does not mean that all video games should be treated as a safe space away from political messages. But that disclaimer does not mean it is okay to attempt to exclude people from video games, either: it is a call to maintain civil discourse in the public sphere.

You can also substitute other, more salient traits in for "enjoys video games" such as "is black" or "is homosexual".

 

[A Link to the Past]

It absolutely isn't. Unequal things can be treated unequally. If one of the main goals of marriage is to encourage people to reproduce (and thus help maintaining a stable society), then it absolutely fair to differentiate. Men and men as well as women and women can not on their own create new life. However the arguement can be made that with recent developments like in-vitro-fertilisation that barrier might fall or has fallen already. (and thus, together with the other arguements I mentioned, it not being unequal things anymore)

That's a really objectivist viewpoint you've got there. Marriage is about a lot of different things, and the idea of ranking them based on whether they click certain checkboxes or not is bad.

As far as I believe in free speach, I think discriminatory talk is unwelcome everywhere, and creating safe places kinda means to me it's ok outside.

Or maybe I don't understand what it cover (saying white men having lesser results in 100 meters dash would be forbidden in a white safe space?)

Safe spaces exist as a response to it still being too okay to be discriminatory. They are not substitutes for eliminating bigotry.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

I always considered one of the most important aspects of safe spaces to be the fact that minority groups can come together and share there experiences and show that one is not alone in their struggles. This seems to be a big aspect that people against any type of safe space seem to ignore.

 

[TLS Lex]

I just want to explain what I'd consider a safe-space, and I'm going to take the time to qualify it because I feel like that's needed these days. I'm not some "militant SJW", but inevitably people start shouting about "free speech!" the minute you want a break from the hate.

I'm a gay dude, and I've been a gamer all my life. Playing online in any capacity comes with its fair share of homophobic (and other hateful) slurs. If I join say an LGBT gaming group online and organise a session of Uncharted 4 multi with the people there, that's the safe space. Because I know I'm not going to be subjected to homophobic abuse from people who don't realise the impact they're having on others. They all "get" it.

That's not to say straight people aren't allowed to join that group (and I'm not the kind of person that would want to exclude those who want to join), just that if you're the kind of person who's going to call someone a "f**king fa**ot" as a casual insult, you're not going to be welcome there. People outside the group might frown on that name-calling behaviour sure, but it's far less likely to happen in a group that's built for those people, and that's what a "safe-space" is to me.

tl;dr it's never OK outside of these groups either, but a bunch of places don't bother to moderate that under the guise of "censorship", and that's exactly the route the Destructoid dude in the OP went with his article. He doesn't "get it" because he's never had to. Lucky him I guess. So many people don't see the difference between being sensitive to how hateful comments can affect a person's life and policing of opinion/ speech. It's just about having some level of empathy for your fellow humans.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

I just want to explain what I'd consider a safe-space, and I'm going to take the time to qualify it because I feel like that's needed these days. I'm not some "militant SJW", but inevitably people start shouting about "free speech!" the minute you want a break from the hate.

I'm a gay dude, and I've been a gamer all my life. Playing online in any capacity comes with its fair share of homophobic (and other hateful) slurs. If I join say an LGBT gaming group online and organise a session of Uncharted 4 multi with the people there, that's the safe space. Because I know I'm not going to be subjected to homophobic abuse from people who don't realise the impact they're having on others. They all "get" it.

That's not to say straight people aren't allowed to join that group (and I'm not the kind of person that would want to exclude those who want to join), just that if you're the kind of person who's going to call someone a "f**king fa**ot" as a casual insult, you're not going to be welcome there. People outside the group might frown on that name-calling behaviour sure, but it's far less likely to happen in a group that's built for those people, and that's what a "safe-space" is to me.

tl;dr it's never OK outside of these groups either, but a bunch of places don't bother to moderate that under the guise of "censorship", and that's exactly the route the Destructoid dude in the OP went with his article. He doesn't "get it" because he's never had to. Lucky him I guess. So many people don't see the difference between being sensitive to how hateful comments can affect a person's life and policing of opinion/ speech. It's just about having some level of empathy for your fellow humans.

So basically safe spaces for videogames are chat rooms where people aren't assholes to each other because of their race or sexual orientation? The horror.

 

[Aiustis]

I just want to explain what I'd consider a safe-space, and I'm going to take the time to qualify it because I feel like that's needed these days. I'm not some "militant SJW", but inevitably people start shouting about "free speech!" the minute you want a break from the hate.

I'm a gay dude, and I've been a gamer all my life. Playing online in any capacity comes with its fair share of homophobic (and other hateful) slurs. If I join say an LGBT gaming group online and organise a session of Uncharted 4 multi with the people there, that's the safe space. Because I know I'm not going to be subjected to homophobic abuse from people who don't realise the impact they're having on others. They all "get" it.

That's not to say straight people aren't allowed to join that group (and I'm not the kind of person that would want to exclude those who want to join), just that if you're the kind of person who's going to call someone a "f**king fa**ot" as a casual insult, you're not going to be welcome there. People outside the group might frown on that name-calling behaviour sure, but it's far less likely to happen in a group that's built for those people, and that's what a "safe-space" is to me.

tl;dr it's never OK outside of these groups either, but a bunch of places don't bother to moderate that under the guise of "censorship", and that's exactly the route the Destructoid dude in the OP went with his article. He doesn't "get it" because he's never had to. Lucky him I guess. So many people don't see the difference between being sensitive to how hateful comments can affect a person's life and policing of opinion/ speech. It's just about having some level of empathy for your fellow humans.

Or you could just suck it up /s

Seriously. Safe spaces are great places. They can be spaces that allow those of us who are used to negative treatment, a place free of that. And they can also open themselves to respectful discussion. A safe space doesn't necessarily mean no opposing view points, but it does mean we can exclude language and behavior used to marginalize people.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Oh please. You know exactly what it is. Don't pretend otherwise. It's been explained so damn often in this topic and elsewhere time and time and time again. Bigots are the ones trying to change it to suit their own needs in order to be allowed to be their shitty selves without being called out for it. That's literally ALL this amounts to.

I was legitimately asking a question, I wasn't being passive-agressive or some shit like that (like you're being). People that advocate for this kinda of thing always gives non-responses like that "You should know better" "I won't waste my time on you" etc.

I propose a question to you and implore you to explain yourself: Do you really think that insulting women, racial minorities, LGBT individuals, religious minorities, etc. etc. etc. adds ANYTHING to discussion? That people deserve to be ridiculed for who they are and that it adds anything fruitful to critical conversation? Because that's what you're defending here.

Of course not, why would you reach such a conclusion? That's just being a douche and these people should be warned for shitty behaviour, but that's what happens pretty much everywhere. When I see "safe spaces" people actually flip their shit over stuff way lighter than that, like discussions if X game is sexist or not. If someone even dares to disagree he'll get pretty much shamed by other people for having a "sexist" opinion and will be banned. I've had my share of experience with "safe spaces" and they're more often than not a place for circlejerking and more often than not, hate (at least on the internet). Like you're free to hate on straight white males all you want and criticize everything, but if a straight person criticizes a gay one you're getting lynched on the spot.

Also trigger warnings by definition are something absurd, you can't expect people to know every single thing that afflicts another person. It sucks for them and I feel bad, I'd probably apologize, but asking for that beforehand is just insane.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I was legitimately asking a question, I wasn't being passive-agressive or some shit like that (like you're being). People that advocate for this kinda of thing always gives non-responses like that "You should know better" "I won't waste my time on you" etc.



Of course not, why would you reach such a conclusion? That's just being a douche and these people should be warned for shitty behaviour, but that's what happens pretty much everywhere. When I see "safe spaces" people actually flip their shit over stuff way lighter than that, like discussions if X game is sexist or not. If someone even dares to disagree he'll get pretty much shamed by other people for having a "sexist" opinion and will be banned. I've had my share of experience with "safe spaces" and they're more often than not a place for circlejerking and more often than not, hate (at least on the internet). Like you're free to hate on straight white males all you want and criticize everything, but if a straight person criticizes a gay one you're getting lynched on the spot.

Also trigger warnings by definition are something absurd, you can't expect people to know every single thing that afflicts another person. It sucks for them and I feel bad, I'd probably apologize, but asking for that beforehand is just insane.

Yeah, wouldn't it be crazy if we had a system that pre-warned for certain su--

oh...

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Yeah, wouldn't it be crazy if we had a system that pre-warned for certain su--


oh...

Are you really comparing a game, a complete and finished product that will be sold everywhere, to an internet post?

Really?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Are you really comparing a game, a complete and finished product that will be sold everywhere, to an internet post?

Really?

We're comparing common sense triggers. If you bring up rape in your post, it's common sense that you should know to make that clear right away.

 

[Snowybreak]

I've had my share of experience with "safe spaces" and they're more often than not a place for circlejerking and more often than not, hate (at least on the internet). Like you're free to hate on straight white males all you want and criticize everything, but if a straight person criticizes a gay one you're getting lynched on the spot.

Hmm... what makes you think that POC and LGBT+ people would hate on straight white males all the time? Wouldn't that be counter-productive? Just like using personal anecdotes that are given very little weight besides the word of the originator? I would be very offended if you were making the assumption that a Black Students Association would be considered, in your words, a "circlejerk."

Edit: And by the way, I am not taking anything out of context, I am just... reorganizing what you just said to show you how it sounds.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Hmm... what makes you think that POC and LGBT+ people would hate on straight white males all the time? Wouldn't that be counter-productive? Just like using personal anecdotes that are given very little weight besides the word of the originator? I would be very offended if you were making the assumption that a Black Students Association would be considered, in your words, a "circlejerk."

Edit: And by the way, I am not taking anything out of context, I am just... reorganizing what you just said to show you how it sounds.

I don't think that they're hating all the time, I'm just saying what these kind of places tend to be in my experience. They go to the hate route really fast. It's a lot of judging and echoing of opinions, even going as far as prosecuting anyone that disagrees with them. I'm not making any assumptions though, I specifically said that these are the kind of things I encounter online. People that organize serious groups in real life tend to be a lot more sensible because they're actually interacting with other human beings in flesh.

 

[Snowybreak]

I don't think that they're hating all the time, I'm just saying what these kind of places tend to be in my experience. They go to the hate route really fast. It's a lot of judging and echoing of opinions, even going as far as prosecuting anyone that disagrees with them. I'm not making any assumptions though, I specifically said that these are the kind of things I encounter online. People that organize serious groups in real life tend to be a lot more sensible because they're actually interacting with other human beings in flesh.

Ok, seriously, drop some names or something. You keep saying "they" and "these places" and providing only anecdotes. And by making these statements you are, in fact, making assumptions. Perhaps you didn't understand something. But it would be wise to not paint a large group (even groups on the internet) with such broad strokes.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Ok, seriously, drop some names or something. You keep saying "they" and "these places" and providing only anecdotes. And by making these statements you are, in fact, making assumptions. Perhaps you didn't understand something. But it would be wise to not paint a large group (even groups on the internet) with such broad strokes.

I don't think that's even relevant, any name I drop won't even matter to you because you don't know these people. The only statement I'm making is that, in my humble opinion, I don't think safe spaces are something that should be enforced everywhere. I find it utopic and a bit misguided. I didn't paint any group, I was sharing my experiences with the kind of people that advocate for this stuff. Like I said, I really used to be all in favor of stuff like that, but I got really disappointed along the way. All I'm doing is giving a personal input on why I think Holmes isn't wrong at all in what he said.

 

[GOOCHY]

The article is bad, no question. But! -- if you don't like Destructoid , don't read it. It's that simple. They have no reason to create "safe spaces" for anyone - whatever that is.

 

[MikeyB]

We're comparing common sense triggers. If you bring up rape in your post, it's common sense that you should know to make that clear right away.

This is where I'm really lost, because the world is full of horror and if I'm speaking with adults and we are having a serious discussion, I fully expect that we should be able to bring up those topics. (Caveats: Making jokes about that horror is pretty obviously tasteless and insensitive depending on the audience and you shouldn't follow a "How you doin'?" with a "Do you ever think about how many people Stalin killed?" or "Did you know that Saddam's executioners used to mail a bill for the bullet to the family of the executed?").

But given the normal flow of an online or in person conversation, it seems unlikely people will be surprised by the comments of posts, so I have no idea why trigger warnings are necessary.