Support NeoGAF

[Simbabbad]

I'm not sure your anecdotal experiences of having never felt harassed in mixed company has much bearing on the pretty extensive history of gay people being harmed and persecuted in society. Especially LGBT teens, who are often terrified of hostile and homophobic family or relatives finding out they're gay. Who are often physically harmed or murdered by someone for talking about being gay.

Here's my anecdotal experience: I'm gay, and a biological parent threatened to murder me. I ended up homeless for a decade because I had nowhere else to go. Also, as a gay adult, three straight men once tried to kill me because they suspected I was gay.

I sure would have appreciated one of those lunatic, unnecessary safe spaces when I needed protection and shelter from my own parents.

And in my experience, some friends have been drugged and raped, some friends have been purposefully contaminated by STDs by a partner who pretended to put on a condom and didn't, some friends were encouraged to use drugs or sexual practices that eventually killed them, some friends discovered that their one night stand stole stuff from their home, I've seen people punch holes in condoms in gay bars so they didn't offer protection from STDs... I've also seen how people can be nasty to each other, either because some people aren't attractive enough by their standards, or out of jealousy. Gay places are an extremely tough environment, and it's very far from being just my own experience. If I had a gay son, I'd be terrified for what could happen to him there. As soon as I got into a couple, I sure as Hell never went back there, and so eventually did all of my friends.

Nastiness can be everywhere, there's not one big bag labelled "victims" and one big bag labelled "persecutors". Some kids are beaten up by their parents or thrown out of their homes for tons of various reasons, and all those kids should find shelter regardless of said reason. From what I've seen and experienced, and from what all my friends saw and themselves experienced, communities aren't a shelter for anybody, they're dumps.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Am I missing something or is this not posted in Gaming Discussion? I mean, a videogame website did post this article but the vast majority of this discussion is not really specifically relating to gaming. It's kind of telling that one of these posts I'm quoting doesn't even realize what section this thread is actually in. Well I guess posting this here doesn't do much and notifying a mod to move this thread would be better. Or is this topic actually in the right section and my thread listing is bugged?

I dunno, maybe you're missing that you don't have an obligation to click every single thread in Gaming? Are you seriously that out there or are you being disingenuous? Then asking a mod to move a thread about an article from a gaming site about the gaming site itsef to the offtopic section, what the fuck? Seriously, lurk more. Lurk a whole lot more.

 

[WrenchNinja]

That sounds fine and great. But whenever safe spaces gets brought up it sounds like it's referring to something much more extreme. Because what you describe is something we've always had.

Probably cause this song and dance is just another form of attack on minorities

 

[Sanctuary]

I find it to be the opposite. People who actually believe what you just said about safe spaces are the most sheltered people that never had to deal with any harsh realities in their life, judging others. Others that are affected by those harsh realities every single day.

Actually, I don't like to post much of anything personal, because I don't need it interfering one way or another in a discussion. But I'll just say this much: I've had to deal with a hell of a lot more shit than the average person (US/CA and much of Europe) has had to over the course of my life, so I know full well of what it's like to be at the receiving end of a stick. While I am confident there are a lot of people that have had it actually way worse, the average person has not had to deal with much of the shit I've had to. This isn't a "Woe is me, my problems are the worst ever, because I'm such a snowflake" kind of mentality either. That's all I want to say about that.

edit: To be clear, I'm fine with the concept of a safe space (it's not so different from a CODA shelter), but what I don't like is when people who aren't a minority, and not actually being abused, but are just ultra entitled want to use them if anyone glances at them the wrong way. And sadly, that seems to be the majority who talk about wanting them; which incidentally corresponds with your reply.

 

[Spyware]

i mean, ideally people would stop dropping bombs on each other too, but to claim we shouldn't build bomb shelters to protect ourselves from them seems a little crazy. lol

Ohh! Let me borrow this for a thing I thought about while reading this thread.
A lot of people claim safe spaces are not needed because people doing bad things should get punished/banned/whatever if they do it "out in the open" anyway.
Sure, but they already dropped a bomb on an innocent unshielded person. The damage is already done! Someone had to suffer.
This person goes through life looking up and trying to dodge bombs all the time. But often getting hit anyway.
To create a bomb shelter where this person can go hang out for an hour everyday isn't segregation or overly shielding the person from the world. It's a place where the person can breathe out and relax, and not have to spend energy on dodging those random bombs.

I've been a part of many girl-only gaming groups (we had a group that played Gears and Mass Effect multiplayer a lot for example) and some of those girls/women would never have started playing MP if we didn't make this safe space for them to learn. When they had "trained" enough with us in the girl-only matches they started joining mixed groups of friends and then even random matches. Yeah they got some harassment and the usual reactions from other players but they were confident in their ability to play the game that it didn't make them drop out and such.
So safe spaces can be used to build up confidence so that you can take on stuff outside of the safe space easier.
Others played only with girls for as long as I knew them but that's fine too. They don't have to expose themselves to harassment if they don't want to. Some people called them weak minded and stuff for this decision. Saying that they need to grow thicker skin to be able to live the rest of their lives. But they don't know what these people have to face outside of gaming. If they can avoid some harrasment and still do what they enjoy, why should they not do that? That's just insane.

GAF is not a safe space but it's certainly the nicest video game related forum I've ever visited and mods/good arguments from users keep it relatively clean

I have no idea if the original article or whatever to call it is supposed to be satire but it's a complete mess, to say the least.

 

[Weltall Zero]

You know what, I'm going to pull another page from LessWrong and ask anybody in the conversation to taboo the word "safe space", because it's obvious it has wildly different meanings (and, more importantly, positive and negative connotations) for different people. Just describe or paraphrase the concept and I feel most of the disagreement will go away.

 

[Ekai]

So tell me, do you want Destructoid to become a "safe space", where you do not have to run the risk of feeling challenged, criticized, or potentially made to feel less than perfect?

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.

Letting your comment section fill with toxicity and people calling women whores or posting tits all the time or calling people SJW feminazis for putting a bra strap on a Japanese game's character art isn't fucking critical or challenging

Moderating your environment to make everyone who loves your hobby feel able to discuss it there without being overwhelmed by a tide of shitty humanity is hardly something to bemoan.

Eyup.

 

[Dalibor68]

lol I would not get into this my dude; at least not with this issue.

"Gay marriage" doesn't have sides in the sense that one is right and one is wrong. Arguing against gay rights is arguing against human rights, so this one is one that's been decided already. There is no fact-based case against gay rights.

That is absolutely incorrect. As I've said before, there is no universal Human Right of Gay Marriage and the ECHR has specifically said there isn't and that it's up to each individual country. Your emotion of "this should not be up to debate" does not mean that is how everyone sees it or has to see it.

And there are arguements, such as that marriage itself is meant to support human reproduction thus certain financial stimuli amongst others can not be transferred onto other couples, resulting in civil unions which are (when done right) basically marriages without the reproduction parts. That is not my personal stance because I don't think it matters anymore in todays society since birth rates are so low and divorce rates so high despite hetero-exclusive-marriages, so might as well allow it for everyone. But the stance itself is based on societal thoughts and not homophobia, so it's very disengenious to just throw everyone in the same box (together with actual bigots) and paint over everyone with the homophobia brush.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

I find it to be the opposite. People who actually believe what you just said about safe spaces are the most sheltered people that never had to deal with any harsh realities in their life, judging others. Others that are affected by those harsh realities every single day.

To be really honest most people I know that advocate for safe spaces are sheltered, rich and don't really know much about life. People who did come in contat with the harsh realities of life being a minority are the first ones to say that such a thing does not exist. They plainly know that you'll have to interact with a myriad of different people in life and that sheltering you from that will gimp you hard.

Like in Destructoid's case, a lot of people's concept of safe space is changing an already estabilished enviroment to their needs and opinions, which is insane. That's different than advocating for more moderation and we know it. People who have to deal with daily violence and shit like that do not need an internet forum safe space, they need real life help and shelter.

A community of friends or like-minded individuals may be a safe space and that's totally fine, but if you try to change something else to your needs than that's a no-no.

 

[Ekai]

That is absolutely incorrect. As I've said before, there is no universal Human Right of Gay Marriage and the ECHR has specifically said there isn't and that it's up to each individual country. Your emotion of "this should not be up to debate" does not mean that is how everyone sees it or has to see it.

And there are arguements, such as that marriage itself is meant to support human reproduction thus certain financial stimuli amongst others can not be transferred onto other couples, resulting in civil unions which are (when done right) basically marriages without the reproduction parts. That is not my personal stance because I don't think it matters anymore in todays society since birth rates are so low and divorce rates so high despite hetero-exclusive-marriages, so might as well allow it for everyone. But the stance itself is based on societal thoughts and not homophobia, so it's very disengenious to just throw everyone in the same box (together with actual bigots) and paint over everyone with the homophobia brush.

.....But those are homophobic stances. It's a belief that one marriage is worth less than another.

To be really honest most people I know that advocate for safe spaces are sheltered, rich and don't really know much about life. People who did come in contat with the harsh realities of life being a minority are the first ones to say that such a thing does not exist. They plainly know that you'll have to interact with a myriad of different people in life and that sheltering you from that will gimp you hard.

Like in Destructoid's case, a lot of people's concept of safe space is changing an already estabilished enviroment to their needs and opinions, which is insane. That's different than advocating for more moderation and we know it. People who have to deal with daily violence and shit like that do not need an internet forum safe space, they need real life help and shelter.

Your argument is literally NOT how safe spaces work. It's the definition concocted by douches who don't want to face criticism for their actions.

 

[balohna]

I was a HUGE fan of Sterling-Holmes era Podtoid. Their interactions were, to me, legendary. In my heart of hearts, Holmes has always been a "Lovely boy". Thoughtful, sensitive, inclusive. Hell, the man is a licensed Social Worker if memory serves.

Certainly he is more than entitled to whatever opinion he wants. I don't think anyone can cast aspersions on his intelligence. All I can say is that I'm surprised he wrote this. It doesn't seem like something he would have written. Of course, I do not personally know the man and am just projecting my presumptions onto him.

He has a master's degree in Social Work and does it as his day job, Destructoid is just a side gig. The dude also hosted one of the best gaming interview shows ever, Sup Holmes.

He has some weird opinions sometimes, but he's also the type to play devil's advocate and challenge people on stuff so... I can't say what his motivations were for this article, but his general "SJW" friendliness has been well documented over the years.

 

[Dalibor68]

.....But those are homophobic stances. It's a belief that one marriage is worth less than another.

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)

 

[-Mutsukki-]

Your argument is literally NOT how safe spaces work. It's the definition concocted by douches who don't want to face criticism for their actions.

Please explain what it is then and why a site like Destructoid should be one

That's not what safe spaces or how they work.

Please enlighten me then. Saying "that's literally not what it is" means nothing to me.

 

[MUnited83]

Actually, I don't like to post much of anything personal, because I don't need it interfering one way or another in a discussion. But I'll just say this much: I've had to deal with a hell of a lot more shit than the average person (US/CA and much of Europe) has had to over the course of my life, so I know full well of what it's like to be at the receiving end of a stick. While I am confident there are a lot of people that have had it actually way worse, the average person has not had to deal with much of the shit I've had to. This isn't a "Woe is me, my problems are the worst ever, because I'm such a snowflake" kind of mentality either. That's all I want to say about that.

edit: To be clear, I'm fine with the concept of a safe space (it's not so different from a CODA shelter), but what I don't like is when people who aren't a minority, and not actually being abused, but are just ultra entitled want to use them if anyone glances at them the wrong way. And sadly, that seems to be the majority who talk about wanting them; which incidentally corresponds with your reply.

If you actually research about them, you will see that the people that actually use them are the people that have to deal with more "harsh realities" than anyone else.

A safe space is also not a fucking magic place where people are living forever. It's a place where people can feel fucking safe to be who they are for a couple of hours. It's not the magical bubble you think it is.

To be really honest most people I know that advocate for safe spaces are sheltered, rich and don't really know much about life. People who did come in contat with the harsh realities of life being a minority are the first ones to say that such a thing does not exist. They plainly know that you'll have to interact with a myriad of different people in life and that sheltering you from that will gimp you hard.

Like in Destructoid's case, a lot of people's concept of safe space is changing an already estabilished enviroment to their needs and opinions, which is insane. That's different than advocating for more moderation and we know it. People who have to deal with daily violence and shit like that do not need an internet forum safe space, they need real life help and shelter.

A community of friends or like-minded individuals may be a safe space and that's totally fine, but if you try to change something else to your needs than that's a no-no.

That's not what safe spaces or how they work.

 

[Ekai]

The fabricated "safe space" outrage is so obnoxiously transparent at this point. Things like groups solely for addicts or people with physical and mental ailments have been openly around for ages, but then a bunch of people coincidentally get mad when attention is given to optional spaces for women, racial minorities, and trans people (this is setting aside that they've been around for ages anyway, of course).

The only silver lining is the hilariously blatant hypocrisy of it all. Given it's a bunch of people outraged about not have a safe space to spout hateful opinions and getting triggered at the idea of a space they can't take over.

Pretty much this too.
Ironically, the bigots try to change what a safe space even means from their own safe space (by their definition of it). It's classic projection.

 

[Beartruck]

Jonathan Holmes says stupid shit, film at 11.

 

[Ekai]

Please explain what it is then and why a site like Destructoid should be one.

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 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.

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 literally saying that homosexual relationships have less value. Marriage isn't about reproduction. It's about a unification of love. Geezus, man.

 

[Sanctuary]

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? Because that's what you're defending here.

Pretty sure they aren't advocating that at all, and if you reread an earlier post, they describe exactly the kind of people they've encountered who actively speak about wanting safe spaces. Not those who actually need them. But even having them isn't even a solution. It's just an extremely small band-aid on something that may never go away entirely as long as everyone has their own, very different life experiences.

 

[John Kowalski]

To be really honest most people I know that advocate for safe spaces are sheltered, rich and don't really know much about life. People who did come in contat with the harsh realities of life being a minority are the first ones to say that such a thing does not exist. They plainly know that you'll have to interact with a myriad of different people in life and that sheltering you from that will gimp you hard.

Like in Destructoid's case, a lot of people's concept of safe space is changing an already estabilished enviroment to their needs and opinions, which is insane. That's different than advocating for more moderation and we know it. People who have to deal with daily violence and shit like that do not need an internet forum safe space, they need real life help and shelter.

A community of friends or like-minded individuals may be a safe space and that's totally fine, but if you try to change something else to your needs than that's a no-no.

Good god. The thinking is not to create these fantastical lands of wonder and comfort, it's to allow for discourse, or other needs anyone might have, unaffected by antagonistic intruders. Real life shelters are safe spaces. And similarly spaces must exist where these disprivileged demographics can engage in intellectual pursuits without the constant bickering of folks who have nothing better to do with their lives than proudly announce their ignorance and bigotry, which they will, always, frequently, and louder and louder until someone concedes to their stupidity.

Safe spaces don't safeguard opinions, they safeguard mechanisms of help and progress.

 

[Ekai]

Pretty sure they aren't advocating that at all, and if you reread an earlier post, they describe exactly the kind of people they've encountered who actively speak about wanting safe spaces. Not those who actually need them. But even having them isn't even a solution. It's just an extremely small band-aid on something that may never go away entirely as long as everyone has their own, very different life experiences.

They're arguing against safe spaces. I'm asking them if they're then okay with that bs. If they're against what safe-spaces actually are then they are saying they're alright with bigots running rampant. They need to address the question.

Good god. The thinking is not to create these fantastical lands of wonder and comfort, it's to allow for discourse, or other needs anyone might have, unaffected by antagonistic intruders. Real life shelters are safe spaces. And similarly spaces must exist where these disprivileged demographics can engage in intellectual pursuits without the constant bickering of folks who have nothing better to do with their lives than proudly announce their ignorance and bigotry, which they will, always, frequently, and louder and louder until someone concedes to their stupidity.

Pretty much this. Again.

 

[Sanctuary]

Good god. The thinking is not to create these fantastical lands of wonder and comfort, it's to allow for discourse, or other needs anyone might have, unaffected by antagonistic intruders. Real life shelters are safe spaces.

You realize that you could literally create a "safe space" for virtually anything though with the above criteria right? Is a book club, chess club, music club or stamp collecting club now considered a "safe space"? Your definition is actually the opposite of a place that allows for discourse, because as soon as anyone in the group gets offended or feels threatened by the statement of someone else, antogonistic or not, then it's no longer a safe space.

 

[Dalibor68]

That's literally saying that homosexual relationships have less value. Marriage isn't about reproduction. It's about a unification of love. Geezus, man.

That is objectively false.

 

[More_Badass]

You realize that you could literally create a "safe space" for virtually anything though with the above criteria right? Is a book club, chess club, music club or stamp collecting club now considered a "safe space"? Your definition is actually the opposite of a place that allows for discourse, because as soon as anyone in the group gets offended or threatened by the statement of someone else, antogonistic or not, then it's no longer a safe space.

I really don't you're grasping the concept. Speaking from experience, I have aspergers. In college, there was a social group for students on the spectrum; there we could discuss issues and stuff that was bothering us, and we could help and answer questions from our own unique perspectives and experiences

People felt unburdened to open up about issues and concerns without being dismissed or ignored, compared to discussing spectrum-related problems with people who have certain biases and misconceptions about being on the spectrum. That's a safe space

 

[Ekai]

That is objectively false.

It's not though. You're just using the right-wing way to approach the topic in order to put homosexual relations on a lower standing. When you consider how varied marriage itself has been throughout history-the argument that it's solely for reproduction falls incredibly flat. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Of course love hasn't always been the sole unification for marriage either. But it more accurately describes what it is. Especially in this day and age.

If you only use the view you subscribe to, you're putting LGB individuals on a lower pedestal and telling them they don't matter as much/that their union doesn't hold as much value/isn't as "real". That's reality. Whether you like that or not, it's what you're arguing for.

 

[Sanctuary]

I really don't you're grasping the concept. Speaking from experience, I have aspergers. In college, there was a social group for students on the spectrum; there we could discuss issues and stuff that was bothering us, and we could help and answer questions from our own unique perspectives and experiences

People felt unburdened to open up about issues and concerns without being dismissed or ignored, compared to discussing spectrum-related problems with people who have certain biases and misconceptions about being on the spectrum. That's a safe space

These kinds of gatherings have always existed in some form. Why are they in the spotlight now, and why are they being called "safe spaces" with the demand to have them everywhere? You don't need to demand them to form them. 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.

 

[John Kowalski]

You realize that you could literally create a "safe space" for virtually anything though with the above criteria right? Is a book club, chess club, music club or stamp collecting club now considered a "safe space"? Your definition is actually the opposite of a place that allows for discourse, because as soon as anyone in the group gets offended or threatened by the statement of someone else, antogonistic or not, then it's no longer a safe space.

Of course that's the case, and there's really nothing wrong with how broad the term is because at the end of the day we're still dealing with concrete applications of it in the real world. And of course their nature as a design focused on human interaction is feeble and malleable because that's how human interaction is. Nonetheless those upsetting behaviors can comport various points in a spectrum, not all of which will be necessarily negative of too hard to manage. And, again, those participating or creating them might not be well intentioned or up to the job, and those spaces might fail for a myriad of reasons that don't concern outside influences.

Yet none of that matters because at the end of the day they're still incredibly valuable, folks still need them, and between endlessly questioning their design or actually working to make them easier to happen, the latter seems like the obvious course of action for someone who's not in need of them.

These kinds of gatherings have always existed in some form. Why are they in the spotlight now, and why are they being called "safe spaces" with the demand to have them everywhere? You don't need to demand them to form them. You also can't censor the world, which is inevitably what this kind of demand leads to, after the worst offenders are dealt with.

Because heightened visibility of feminist and LGBTQ issues in games culture has expectedly provided an exponentially proportional degree of resistance.

 

[Ekai]

These kinds of gatherings have always existed in some form. Why are they in the spotlight now, and why are they being called "safe spaces" with the demand to have them everywhere? You don't need to demand them to form them.

....Because they're thrust into the spot-light by bigots who want to get away with being bigots. This really isn't that hard.
This isn't about "demanding" anything. It's about asking for basic human decency. Not to mention they've been called safe spaces for a while now. This isn't new. >_>

 

[TheProudCanadian]

I always regret reading articles and threads about safe spaces and trigger warnings no matter what side of the debate it is.

All just so fucking silly and apparently missing the point.

No matter how much I read I never seem to understand what the hell people are actually talking about.

This is my life for the last 5 years. I don't get the amount of time and effort spent on these discussion, I can't comprehend what each side even wants, or how many sides there are. It's a clusterfuck of people misusing terms, inventing new ones, and changing the definitions of old ones until nobody knows what anybody is saying.

 

[Trojan]

I didn't pick up some of the subtleties of the article until OP pointed them out, but they're definitely there. Really weird/questionable article that I bet the site leadership regrets it posted.

 

[Sanctuary]

....Because they're thrust into the spot-light by bigots who want to get away with being bigots. This really isn't that hard.
This isn't about "demanding" anything. It's about asking for basic human decency. Not to mention they've been called safe spaces for a while now. This isn't new. >_>

It's still relatively new, and it's picked up a lot of steam over the last year. Online anyway.

 

[John Kowalski]

It's still relatively new, and it's picked up a lot of steam over the last year. Online anyway.

Which should clear up your familiarity with the topic i guess.

 

[KORNdoggy]

These kinds of gatherings have always existed in some form. Why are they in the spotlight now, and why are they being called "safe spaces" with the demand to have them everywhere? You don't need to demand them to form them.

pray tell, how do you form a safe space (if you want to call it something else by all means) on a website you love visiting but is marred by forums that are poorly moderated or comments sections rife with sexism, homophobia and racism? i mean, you need to ask, right? it's not like we can just hack into their code and make a place for like-minded individuals. someone on their end needs to make that a reality. if there is no demand for gay clubs for instance (safe spaces for LGBT folk) then they won't be opened.

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.

 

[MUnited83]

These kinds of gatherings have always existed in some form. Why are they in the spotlight now, and why are they being called "safe spaces" with the demand to have them everywhere? You don't need to demand them to form them. 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.

They are on the spotlight now because right wingers feel really threatened that LGBTQ and other minorities are getting more visibility and slowly getting equal rights.

 

[Ekai]

It's still relatively new, and it's picked up a lot of steam over the last year. Online anyway.

It's been around for years.

Which should clear up your familiarity with the topic i guess.

Pretty much this.

pray tell, how do you form a safe space (if you want to call it something else by all means) on a website you love visiting but is marred by forums that are poorly moderated or comments sections rife with sexism, homophobia and racism? i mean, you need to ask, right? it's not like we can just hack into their code and make a place for like-minded individuals. someone on their end needs to make that a reality. if there is no demand for gay clubs for instance (safe spaces for LGBT folk) then they won't be opened.

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.

They are on the spotlight now because right wingers feel really threatened that LGBTQ and other minorities are getting more visibility and slowly getting equal rights.

And these.


Your edit about minorities, who again are under attack by alt-righters, trying to "censor the world" tells volumes about your stance on this topic and who you think needs to be allowed a voice, Sanctuary.

 

[rackham]

I honestly think that our internet culture likes to feel more upset than they are or should be to entice and speed up change in people's views.

As long as someone doesn't lie, they should write however they feel. Some people love to attack over very minor spoilers too which helps me further sympathize with the writer of that article.

 

[Bolivar687]

It's not though. You're just using the right-wing way to approach the topic in order to put homosexual relations on a lower standing. When you consider how varied marriage itself has been throughout history-the argument that it's solely for reproduction falls incredibly flat. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Of course love hasn't always been the sole unification for marriage either. But it more accurately describes what it is. Especially in this day and age.

If you only use the view you subscribe to, you're putting LGB individuals on a lower pedestal and telling them they don't matter as much/that their union doesn't hold as much value/isn't as "real". That's reality. Whether you like that or not, it's what you're arguing for.

The inverse is also true. Putting them on equal footing makes the claim that there is nothing transformative about childbirth and manifesting a couples love in a human child. Maybe that's a valid claim to make in a materialistic society with low birth and high divorce rates but there are many cultures where trivializing procrearion is facially ridiculous.

This is what Holmes is getting at - that people want to dismiss other perspectives with a wide brush (such as right wing above) instead of having a genuine conversation where we can think critically about these issues. I honestly can't believe he sees no value in legitimate safe spaces and the value they have provided. But it cannot be denied that there is a large part of the community, at least on Destructoid, that does not want to confront ideas that contradict their own.

 

[Sanctuary]

They are on the spotlight now because right wingers feel really threatened that LGBTQ and other minorities are getting more visibility and slowly getting equal rights.

What's been getting all of the press lately about safe spaces isn't for minorities or the truly oppressed though. It's now like every other movement or idea that started out nobly and was then hijacked. I think that's where the disconnect in this thread is from. You see what they were supposed to be for, and I'm seeing what they are turning into.

 

[molnizzle]

I'm 30, never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life. I recently went back to finish my undergrad full time at 30, and I've still never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life.

Do these places actually exist or are they just something people made up to argue about on the Internet? Genuine question. If they don't have them at my gigantic public university then where else would they be?

 

[Kinsei]

I'm 30, never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life. I recently went back to finish my undergrad full time at 30, and I've still never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life.

Do these places actually exist or are they just something people made up to argue about on the Internet? Genuine question. If they don't have them at my gigantic public university then where else would they be?

Was there a GSA, any study groups for specific people, and things like that? Those are safe spaces.

 

[Ekai]

What's been getting all of the press lately about safe spaces isn't for minorities or the truly oppressed though. It's now like every other movement or idea that started out nobly and was then hijacked. I think that's where the disconnect in this thread is from. You see what they were supposed to be for, and I'm seeing what they are turning into.

They aren't turning into anything is the point. You're continuing to defend the alt-right bastardization of what a safe space is. Which is insanely ironic considering how they're hiding out in their own definition of a safe space while doing so.

Again, your edit about "censoring the world" is incredibly telling on your view on bigots being allowed to be shitty to others.

 

[Dalibor68]

It's not though. You're just using the right-wing way to approach the topic in order to put homosexual relations on a lower standing. When you consider how varied marriage itself has been throughout history-the argument that it's solely for reproduction falls incredibly flat. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Of course love hasn't always been the sole unification for marriage either. But it more accurately describes what it is. Especially in this day and age.

If you only use the view you subscribe to, you're putting LGB individuals on a lower pedestal and telling them they don't matter as much/that their union doesn't hold as much value/isn't as "real". That's reality. Whether you like that or not, it's what you're arguing for.

Yes it absolutely is. Please read up on the matter instead of going "But it's about lovee man!". I'm not going to discuss emotions with you, this is about the societal intention and (political) meaning of the institute of marriage.

Also I didn't say reproduction is the sole purpose, but it plays a major role. There is literally nothing "right-wing" about that, whatever that is even supposed to mean. You create something to encourage reproduction, naturally it applies to those (couples) who can actually reproduce (on their own). As times and biotechnology change and things like in-vitro-fertilisation amongst other things have become possible, there is no reason to exclude others from that anymore, thus the reproduction angle is not as relevant anymore.

 

[Sanctuary]

Again, your edit about "censoring the world" is incredibly telling on your view on bigots being allowed to be shitty to others.

No, it really isn't. You also don't need to look to be offended at statements where no offense was even intended. I can't even tell if you're serisouly just looking for arguments that aren't there now.

 

[More_Badass]

I'm 30, never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life. I recently went back to finish my undergrad full time at 30, and I've still never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life.

Do these places actually exist or are they just something people made up to argue about on the Internet? Genuine question. If they don't have them at my gigantic public university then where else would they be?

Support groups and the like are safe spaces. If my public university had them, you're probably did too

 

[More_Badass]

Actually curious about this, who coined the actual term "safe space"? It sounds like the kind of term that the alt-right or the like would create to dismiss and marginalize support groups.

 

[KORNdoggy]

I'm 30, never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life. I recently went back to finish my undergrad full time at 30, and I've still never seen or heard of a "safe space" in real life.

Do these places actually exist or are they just something people made up to argue about on the Internet? Genuine question. If they don't have them at my gigantic public university then where else would they be?

probably the usual case of "i didn't need it" so you never actively sought it out. it's like being aware there is a chess club...would you honestly know such a club existed if you wasn't into chess? probably not.

 

[MUnited83]

What's been getting all of the press lately about safe spaces isn't for minorities or the truly oppressed though. It's now like every other movement or idea that started out nobly and was then hijacked. I think that's where the disconnect in this thread is from. You see what they were supposed to be for, and I'm seeing what they are turning into.

No, they haven't been turning into anything. You're, once again, buying into the right wing propaganda that will cherry pick any example they can, spin it, take it out of context, and treat it it like it's the norm.

 

[Kinsei]

Actually curious about this, who coined the actual term "safe space"? It sounds like the kind of term that the alt-right or the like would create to dismiss and marginalize support groups.

I believe the term was coined in '89 by GLUE (Gay and Lesbian Urban Explorers).

 

[Ekai]

Yes it absolutely is. Please read up on the matter instead of going "But it's about lovee man!". I'm not going to discuss emotions with you, this is about the societal importance and meaning of the institute of marriage.

Also I didn't say reproduction is the sole purpose, but it plays a major role. There is literally nothing "right-wing" about that, whatever that is even supposed to mean. You create something to encourage reproduction, naturally it applies to those who can actually reproduce. As times and biotechnology change and thing like in-vitro-fertilisation amongst other things have become possible, there is no reason to exclude others from that anymore, thus the reproduction angle is not as relevant anymore.

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 in America): 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.

The inverse is also true. Putting them on equal footing makes the claim that there is nothing transformative about childbirth and manifesting a couples love in a human child. Maybe that's a valid claim to make in a materialistic society with low birth and high divorce rates but there are many cultures where trivializing procrearion is facially ridiculous.

This is what Holmes is getting at - that people want to dismiss other perspectives with a wide brush (such as right wing above) instead of having a genuine conversation where we can think critically about these issues. I honestly can't believe he sees no value in legitimate safe spaces and the value they have provided. But it cannot be denied that there is a large part of the community, at least on Destructoid, that does not want to confront ideas that contradict their own.

I addressed the inverse in regards to how marriage is defined throughout the ages and various cultures.
And sorry but Equal Rights Is Not Devlauing Someone Else's Rights.
That argument is so insanely nonsensical and tiring to deal with, especially as a minority. Your rights aren't lessened because the minority gains some.

Bigots aren't after genuine conversation. There is no defense for their hatred.

No, it really isn't. You also don't need to look to be offended at statements where no offense was even intended. I can't even tell if you're serisouly just looking for arguments that aren't there now.

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. 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 believe the term was coined in '89 by GLUE (Gay and Lesbian Urban Explorers).

This is correct as far as my knowledge goes.

 

[Ekai]

Sorry for double post.

 

[fart town usa]

Uh, no. Go into any thread about race/gender/politics and you'll find a lot of ignorant people with incorrect and harmful opinions.

Safe spaces are spaces free from ignorant majorities. That is their function.

Please.

/comrade