Support NeoGAF

[Nibiru]

I love a good, rollicking debate, too. But not everything has to be a debate, and if I'm trying to discuss, say, sexual assault with a group of likeminded individuals because we want to/need to/are working things out, no one is served by someone else butting in and demanding we prove levels of sexual assault and who's affected and how and show statistics. That's not debate. That's entitlement. That's the so-called naysayer assuming they are entitled to my time and effort, and sometimes, I just don't want to and shouldn't be required.

I don't think anyone is against making a group of like minded people. It's certainly not what I'm talking about. Even bringing up that angle feels like a straw-man because I don't care whatsoever about your private group and what you discuss. Nothing I posted has anything to do with that. I am not suggesting private groups include opposing viewpoints lol.

The safe space debate currently that is rubbing some the wrong way is pertaining to certain groups trying to make an entire campus their safe space and getting people fired or groups shut down because they are not in line with the viewpoints of the mob.

 

[UncleSporky]

But sometimes it is absolutely about safety. What then?

In what way, that would preclude other descriptors, or even synonyms that would lack the same baggage?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Targeted discussion group/forum is vastly better.

I mean, come on, it's pretty much a no-brainer. When you're deciding what to call your group, and on the one hand you have something neutral like support group or targeted discussion forum that invites no controversy and lets you conduct your business in peace...and on the other hand you have safe space that is loaded with baggage and leads to conflict and protests and FUD...why the hell would you choose "safe space?"

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

This is the exact same thing that comes up with feminism or BlackLivesMatter. Are you suggesting they change their name to peoplism and AllLivesMatter?

The names are born from an idealism. If you change the name you give dissenters credibility that you're point was weak. Because let's be honest, 10 minutes of google can solve the vast majority of opposition to these names if people were genuine with themselves. The concept of safe space has existed for decades. It doesn't lose credibility because a bunch of idiots take Souh Pqrk too seriously.

 

[ElTorro]

I don't think anyone is against making a group of like minded people. It's certainly not what I'm talking about. Even bringing up that angle feels like a straw-man because I don't care whatsoever about your private group and what you discuss. Nothing I posted has anything to do with that.

The safe space debate currently that is rubbing some the wrong way is pertaining to certain groups trying to make an entire campus their safe space and getting people fired or groups shut down because they are not in line with the viewpoints of the mob.

That's how I see this topic too.

Obviously, everybody can organize private gatherings according to whatever rules he or she prefers. But it seems to me that the concept of a safe space has lately been lifted to an institutional level. And universities simply are meant to be places of debate. Repeatedly discussing topics and arguments that are deemed settled by some or many is kinda the point of education. Even if individuals have debated these ideas repeatedly already and are tired of being confronted with them, a university is not the place where this should be suppressed. Especially not when the issue is not yet settled in the minds of people who still think differently.

For instance, if a relevant number of students rejects evolution, biology classes should not ignore that, but teach the basic evidence for evolution extensively in their introductory courses instead. You might say that it is an opportunity cost to have to defend evolution in detail in 2015, but how else do you want to convince that relevant number of students who still reject it? They won't go away by simply ignoring the issue.

 

[dragonelite]

As a university instructor, this makes me laugh. Guess what happens if we don't give content warnings before readings/films/etc, particularly in freshman-level classes? People get calls from parents. It's been relatively standard practice for decades. But change "content" to "trigger" and everyone flips out.

Wait wut?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Last weekend I was out drinking with 2 of my libertarian friends. Prior to going out these guys were making fun of safe spaces and the use of the word 'triggered'.

Later on in the night, I met up with another friend and his girlfriend. At one point while my one friend left his girlfriend's side to get a drink, she got cornered by another guy at a bar. I walked by and she pleaded for help and pretended to be my girlfriend to make the guy go away.

Afterward, she broke down into tears explaining to me that the guy grabbed her ass and that she has a significant history of dealing with sexual abuse. She was an absolute wreck and she said this sort of stuff was "triggering" her troubled past.

I look over to my other two libertarian friends and tell them that this is why people want safe spaces. I hope that provided some perspective to them.

 

[ElTorro]

I look over to my other two libertarian friends and tell them that this is why people want safe spaces. I hope that provided some perspective to them.

I doubt that a safe space is defined as the only place where grabbing somebody's ass without their consent is and should be wrong.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

That's how I see this topic too.

Obviously, everybody can organize private gatherings according to whatever rules he or she prefers. But it seems to me that the concept of a safe space has lately been lifted to an institutional level. And universities simply are meant to be places of debate. Repeatedly discussing topics and arguments that are deemed settled by some or many is kinda the point of education.

When people say universities are places of debate I dont really get what they're speaking about. You go to class you debate, you write essays, you orovide positions. Outside of class where exactly is the uni an instituation of debate? Any public forum that occurs at a University has always been open to debate. But like, having a room for LGBT students to be around like minded individuals without fearing being slammed or shamed on campus (aka a safe space) by others is not somehow stiflig legit discussion.

Most of the discussion in this thread seems like its taking a singular occurence of "black students taking a public space meant for the general populationand turnig it into a safe space meant only for black students". That is certainly a controversial move (I get why they did it but I do feel its inherently wrong) but if your idea of safe spacing being all coddling is based on one or two issues you're really just lacking clarity on the issue.

Universities are institutions of academia. That does not mean its all academia all the time. It doesn't mean that everything is always open to debate. Nor does it mean they want to foster environments where marginalized people can not get a breather.

 

[gamechanger87]

Last weekend I was out drinking with 2 of my libertarian friends. Prior to going out these guys were making fun of safe spaces and the use of the word 'triggered'.

Later on in the night, I met up with another friend and his girlfriend. At one point while my one friend left his girlfriend's side to get a drink, she got cornered by another guy at a bar. I walked by and she pleaded for help and pretended to be my girlfriend to make the guy go away.

Afterward, she broke down into tears explaining to me that the guy grabbed her ass and that she has a significant history of dealing with sexual abuse. She was an absolute wreck and she said this sort of stuff was "triggering" her troubled past.

I look over to my other two libertarian friends and tell them that this is why people want safe spaces. I hope that provided some perspective to them.

Yeah that's not a safe space issue. This is someone getting sexually assaulted. I think all locations in the world are safe spaces from sexual assault and other crimes.

I really don't know what point you were trying to make.

 

[Ol No Bones]

I'm for it. I think we should make all spaces safe spaces.

 

[UncleSporky]

This is the exact same thing that comes up with feminism or BlackLivesMatter. Are you suggesting they change their name to peoplism and AllLivesMatter?

The names are born from an idealism. If you change the name you give dissenters credibility that you're point was weak. Because let's be honest, 10 minutes of google can solve the vast majority of opposition to these names if people were genuine with themselves. The concept of safe space has existed for decades. It doesn't lose credibility because a bunch of idiots take Souh Pqrk too seriously.

I don't know. I didn't say anything about those groups. This is a targeted discussion, after all.

"Safe space" isn't a movement, anyway, nor is it even attached to any particular movement. Hate groups can and do have safe spaces. It's not about credibility, it's just about function. Anyone can choose to declare a group or location a safe space, correct or not. But if doing so results in a more hostile environment? Why would you consciously choose to do so?

What do you mean, it gives dissenters credibility? Protest, strife, misinterpretation, all of that is the exact opposite of the purpose of a safe space. If you can achieve the same function in your group by using different terminology, only it functions better because nobody is protesting you or intentionally trying to invade your safe space, why wouldn't you do so?

I'm just picturing...

One campus sees the creation a safe space for a specific group. It makes the local news because everyone is talking about safe spaces these days. A lot of people are wrongly upset because they don't get it. People protest and try to create counter-safe spaces for their own viewpoints. Assholes intentionally decide to try to visit the safe space to sow as much dissent as they can (trolling) and are praised for doing so. People within the safe space are stressed and feel less safe than they did when it was just a couple of like-minded people sharing some small talk in private.

Another campus sees the creation of a safe space for a specific group, but they don't call it that. Concept still exists and works. Everyone with relevant interests discover it and seek it out. Group functions as intended. Little chance of anyone unwanted showing up because it's not relevant to them. If assholes show up, they are quickly asked to leave and dealt with, and become known locally as the asshole they are, not as a martyr for some excluded group.

 

[ElTorro]

But like, having a room for LGBT students to be around like minded individuals without fearing being slammed or shamed on campus (aka a safe space) by others is not somehow stiflig legit discussion.

If that's what it is meant by a safe space, then I consider that a private gathering, which can be organized by any ruleset that the participants prefer. But as I said, it seems to me that the concept has been lifted recently to the institutional level. For instance, by declaring the entire campus a safe-space-like zone, in order to campaign against controversial speakers or offensive halloween costumes.

 

[Brakke]

The way this breaks on political lines is so weird. Lots of Conservatives flounce around trying to quash people from saying "Happy Holidays" and from teaching evolution in schools and from researching gun violence as a public health issue. Which activities are, essentially, constructing spaces safe and insulated from difficult ideas.

 

[knkng]

I used a very extreme example because this very thing does happen, and often, but it's not so clear cut. Examples:

At my university, there are a lot of international students. There is a constant stream of insults about international students, assumptions made, questions most would file under "microaggressions," ignoring of international students in group/classroom settings, not by the instructor but by other students. Students are ostensibly free to be assholes; they aren't specifically violating any tenets of university policy, but what's the real impact of this behavior?

Also at my university: because it is public, fire-and-brimstone preachers sometimes take up residence on campus, yelling at passerby about "the gays," about "whores in short skirts," about how everyone is the devil and going to hell, how we should all be stopped, how we have to save everyone from disintegrating morality. This feels very like hate speech and has been specifically protected by the administration because, well, it's free expression.

If you look at the Yale situation, at Mizzou, at others, through various lenses, you see very different situations experienced by very different people. What's not a big deal to one person may feel like a constant low-grade battlefield for another, marginalized student, and that's not conducive to a learning environment.

So what do we do?

I think I'm understanding better now.

In those cases I would agree that there should be a proposed reform of the policies in place. You would need to come up with solutions regarding each specific situation, which should be reviewed by a panel. However, I would hesitate to call this "creating a safe space." It's an amendment to the rules, not a guarantee of any student's emotional safety. There's nothing wrong with striving for a more palatable working environment.

I guess I just have a very different view of safe spaces. I regard it more as a place where like-minded people can gather, without the bother of others with opposing viewpoints. I think such activities should be held in private. This is very different from removing explicit hate-speech and aggression from a work/school environment. That's a rules/regulations issue.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I don't know. I didn't say anything about those groups. This is a targeted discussion, after all.

"Safe space" isn't a movement, anyway, nor is it even attached to any particular movement. Hate groups can and do have safe spaces. It's not about credibility, it's just about function. Anyone can choose to declare a group or location a safe space, correct or not. But if doing so results in a more hostile environment? Why would you consciously choose to do so?

What do you mean, it gives dissenters credibility? Protest, strife, misinterpretation, all of that is the exact opposite of the purpose of a safe space. If you can achieve the same function in your group by using different terminology, only it functions better because nobody is protesting you or intentionally trying to invade your safe space, why wouldn't you do so?

I'm just picturing...

One campus sees the creation a safe space for a specific group. It makes the local news because everyone is talking about safe spaces these days. A lot of people are wrongly upset because they don't get it. People protest and try to create counter-safe spaces for their own viewpoints. Assholes intentionally decide to try to visit the safe space to sow as much dissent as they can (trolling) and are praised for doing so. People within the safe space are stressed and feel less safe than they did when it was just a couple of like-minded people sharing some small talk in private.

Another campus sees the creation of a safe space for a specific group, but they don't call it that. Concept still exists and works. Everyone with relevant interests discover it and seek it out. Group functions as intended. Little chance of anyone unwanted showing up because it's not relevant to them. If assholes show up, they are quickly asked to leave and dealt with, and become known locally as the asshole they are, not as a martyr for some excluded group.

The idea wasn't about movements. I qas drawing the comparison that the name comes from an idealism. You change the name due to pressure from dissenters, it discredits your idealism. You were saying why attract the controversy. My point was the controversy isn't rellly about the name, you aren't going to really win if you just try ti code your language differently.

 

[dragonelite]

If that's what it is meant by a safe space, then I consider that a private gathering, which can be organized by any ruleset that the participants prefer. But as I said, it seems to me that the concept has been lifted recently to the institutional level. For instance, by declaring the entire campus a safe-space-like zone, in order to campaign against controversial speakers or offensive halloween costumes.

That was going through me mind, it sounds a lot like a private meeting or club.

 

[Azulsky]

Afterward, she broke down into tears explaining to me that the guy grabbed her ass and that she has a significant history of dealing with sexual abuse. She was an absolute wreck and she said this sort of stuff was "triggering" her troubled past.

That has nothing to do with safespaces from dissimilar opinions. That is sexual assault.

 

[jabuseika]

A safe space is where you go to stagnate mentally and emotionally.

Never had a safe space growing up, and I'm thankful for that.

I faced offense, I faced discrimination as an immigrant, and some times I faced outright hate.

Being exposed to opposing ideals from a young age, I believe made me grow up a smarter person, and more emotionally stable than a lot of people around me.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

It is in the sense that at least 30% of people in here first heard of the term from South Park, meaning you should watch it to understand where some people's frames of reference are coming from.

Ah okay that's fair. I do apologize for a slight overreaction. I'm just so used to seeing "South Park is right about everything it's where I get all my political views from" on the internet that I'm weary about people using it as an example.

 

[gamechanger87]

If that's what it is meant by a safe space, then I consider that a private gathering, which can be organized by any ruleset that the participants prefer. But as I said, it seems to me that the concept has been lifted recently to the institutional level. For instance, by declaring the entire campus a safe-space-like zone, in order to campaign against controversial speakers or offensive halloween costumes.

Exactly, people seem to be misunderstanding the fact that the issue with safe spaces are being pushed institutionwide as an attempt to stifle anything that may trigger certain groups. Private gatherings are never an issue, but public spaces are the issue.

 

[injurai]

Yeah that's not a safe space issue. This is someone getting sexually assaulted. I think all locations in the world are safe spaces from sexual assault and other crimes.

I really don't know what point you were trying to make.

All locations should be devoid of sexual assault. A safe space would be a public place where such a thing would be actively enforced against with zero-tolerance policies, in addition to other things like ideas.

 

[Nibiru]

The way this breaks on political lines is so weird. Lots of Conservatives flounce around trying to quash people from saying "Happy Holidays" and from teaching evolution in schools and from researching gun violence as a public health issue. Which activities are, essentially, constructing spaces safe and insulated from difficult ideas.

Liberals and Conservatives are just as sensitive it's just the issues are different. This is a bad thing though and should be called out equally when it's headline grabbing.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

A safe space is where you go to stagnate mentally and emotionally.

Never had a safe space growing up, and I'm thankful for that.

It's cool that you have a well-informed, strong position on this subject based on absolutely no experience with it at all. I wish I could be that worldly.

 

[UncleSporky]

The idea wasn't about movements. I qas drawing the comparison that the name comes from an idealism. You change the name due to pressure from dissenters, it discredits your idealism. You were saying why attract the controversy. My point was the controversy isn't rellly about the name, you aren't going to really win if you just try ti code your language differently.

But everyone keeps saying in this thread over and over that the concept of safe spaces has existed for ages without creating any controversy. And it's true! In concept, if not name. "Safe space" is already a change from what the concept used to be called.

Why the sudden problems? Because the new words chosen lead to misinterpretation.

You don't change the name due to pressure. This isn't like people saying "Black Lives Matter?! What about ALL LIVES MATTER?!?!" There's no actual pressure to change the name, no defeat of any idealism. Simply using another phrase in this specific case (support group, targeted discussion forum) puts a stop to all misinterpretation and allows the group to function as it should.

Does changing "Black Lives Matter" to "All Lives Matter" allow the movement to progress as it should? No, obviously not at all...it's far from an apt comparison.

 

[LosDaddie]

Last weekend I was out drinking with 2 of my libertarian friends. Prior to going out these guys were making fun of safe spaces and the use of the word 'triggered'.

Later on in the night, I met up with another friend and his girlfriend. At one point while my one friend left his girlfriend's side to get a drink, she got cornered by another guy at a bar. I walked by and she pleaded for help and pretended to be my girlfriend to make the guy go away.

Afterward, she broke down into tears explaining to me that the guy grabbed her ass and that she has a significant history of dealing with sexual abuse. She was an absolute wreck and she said this sort of stuff was "triggering" her troubled past.

I look over to my other two libertarian friends and tell them that this is why people want safe spaces. I hope that provided some perspective to them.

GAF, this post right here is why a lot of people are apprehensive about Safe Spaces, and why media like South Park make fun of the more extreme cases of people wanting them.

This post has nothing to do with Safe Spaces, and everything to do with sexual assault.

 

[UncleSporky]

That was going through me mind, it sounds a lot like a private meeting or club.

You're right, it is. And it should be called that to skip all the handwringing and FUD before it starts.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

If that's what it is meant by a safe space, then I consider that a private gathering, which can be organized by any ruleset that the participants prefer. But as I said, it seems to me that the concept has been lifted recently to the institutional level. For instance, by declaring the entire campus a safe-space-like zone, in order to campaign against controversial speakers or offensive halloween costumes.

LGBT safe spaces are institutional. They are endorsed by the University. They aren't just some rented shit where he Uni doesn't at all get involved. Anything that is funded by the school is institutionally supported.

The declaring a school as a safe zone is not institutional unless the school itsepf actually states it supports it. My university was a safe zpne for LGBT peoples. That doesn't mean you are disallowed from talking about whether you agree or disagree with it, it means its not going to tollerate harassment of its students or hateful drivel targeted towards them.

The offensive Hallpween costumes hing is blown out of proportion. Students bitching was part of it but theschool never banned its populace from wearing offensivr costumes. In the name of respect it made an effort to inform ots students pf costumes that may be offensive.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You're right, it is. And it should be called that to skip all the handwringing and FUD before it starts.

It's really not on any group, person, or entity to change things just because others are too ignorant or stubborn to learn about it.

 

[jabuseika]

It's cool that you have a well-informed, strong position on this subject based on absolutely no experience with it at all. I wish I could be that worldly.

How do you make that assumption?

I'm college student, I've been keeping up with what's going on.

My personal opinion on safe spaces, was not an opinion on whether they should exists or not, nor did I say anything about that.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

How do you make that assumption?

I'm college student, I've been keeping up with what's going on.

My personal opinion on safe spaces, was not an opinion on whether they should exists or not, nor did I say anything about that.

I didn't say anything about you saying if it should exist or not. I was just pointing out how funny it is that in the first sentence here you have a strong opinion on what a safe space does to a person, but then right afterward you appear to be admitting you've never even been in one.

A safe space is where you go to stagnate mentally and emotionally.

Never had a safe space growing up, and I'm thankful for that.

I'm not convinced you actually know the purpose, definition, or utility of a safe space.

 

[Nibiru]

A safe space is where you go to stagnate mentally and emotionally.

Never had a safe space growing up, and I'm thankful for that.

I faced offense, I faced discrimination as an immigrant, and some times I faced outright hate.

Being exposed to opposing ideals from a young age, I believe made me grow up a smarter person, and more emotionally stable than a lot of people around me.

Safe spaces vary though. An lgbt group is important because it's still somewhat taboo in certain religions and regions and a place for them to talk to like minded people is very important. Certain issues are intense enough that people only want to talk to like minded people and if they want to make a group then that's cool imo.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

But everyone keeps saying in this thread over and over that the concept of safe spaces has existed for ages without creating any controversy. And it's true! In concept, if not name. "Safe space" is already a change from what the concept used to be called.

Why the sudden problems? Because the new words chosen lead to misinterpretation.

You don't change the name due to pressure. This isn't like people saying "Black Lives Matter?! What about ALL LIVES MATTER?!?!" There's no actual pressure to change the name, no defeat of any idealism. Simply using another phrase in this specific case (support group, targeted discussion forum) puts a stop to all misinterpretation and allows the group to function as it should.

Does changing "Black Lives Matter" to "All Lives Matter" allow the movement to progress as it should? No, obviously not at all...it's far from an apt comparison.

You genuinely think if they stop calling them safe spaces this comtroversy will wither away? I mean if you really believe that I agree with your point. But personally, I don't think changing the name will do anything. I don't believe the controversy is because of the name, I think it stems from people pissed off about the voice and power marginalized groups have gained in society to stir shit.

 

[Brakke]

A safe space is where you go to stagnate mentally and emotionally.

Never had a safe space growing up, and I'm thankful for that.

I faced offense, I faced discrimination as an immigrant, and some times I faced outright hate.

Being exposed to opposing ideals from a young age, I believe made me grow up a smarter person, and more emotionally stable than a lot of people around me.

You never just sat down and played Mario and didn't think about shit for a while? You never went to some trash blockbuster movie and just kind of zoned out for a bit? You never like went for a long walk in the woods away from people and thinking? Nobody's ever "on" 100% of the time. Living the considered life is burdensome and exhausting and sometimes you just gotta put that weight down for a minute. When I need a break from thinking about whatever stressful thing, I take my dog on hikes; my brother surfs; these student groups hang out in a room.

It's not like they go in there and totally forget that institutional racism persists, or that sexual assault is pervasive and under-prosecuted, and then come away vulnerable to the harsh reality of the world. Sometimes you just gotta take a fucken break. So here as in all things we see there's a spectrum to constructing a safe space: taking a fucken break just for like a minute at the "totally permissible and not a problem" end and imposing strict censorship regimes at the "totally not ok" end.

Constructung a safe space is valuable in some ways and dangerous in others because it is a Thing and all Things exhibit this property. So I'm sympathetic both to the impulse to criticize them and to the impulse to construct them, but we gotta approach each individual case on its merits. You can't support or censure one without intimate knowledge of how it is specifically implemented and experienced.

 

[jabuseika]

I didn't say anything about you saying if it should exist or not. I was just pointing out how funny it is that in the first sentence here you have a strong opinion on what a safe space does to a person, but then right afterward you appear to be admitting you've never even been in one.

I know what a safe space is, and what it's purpose is.

When I grew up we didn't even have that concept, so I can't claim to have seen one or been in one.

Honestly safe spaces only appeared in my life once I had entered college.

I went my entire life just fine with out one, does that disqualify me on having an opinion on the concept?

 

[kirby_fox]

I'm not a fan of being unable to voice a counter-opinion in America, even if it's unpopular, unless it's actually harmful to people at hand. For instance, I don't see why anyone would walk into a meeting for people with body issues and tell them they're all ugly.

But I'm also not a fan of disrespecting people where you walk into a group of people attempting to have a discussion about something and start shouting them down with what some would equate to hate speech.

I think both are counter-productive, and in the end all we're allowing is an echo-chamber of groups wanting their voices heard but unable to find people who aren't shouting down their own echo-chambered ideologies that exist for the same reasons. And all that happens there is that no one is heard.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I know what a safe space is, and what it's purpose is.

When I grew up we didn't even have that concept, so I can't claim to have seen one or been in one.

Honestly safe spaces only appeared in my life once I had entered college.

I went my entire life just fine with out one, does that disqualify me on having an opinion on the concept?

Generally, if you don't have experience with a topic, it's best not to come in and say people who are participants of it are stagnating emotionally and mentally.

Also this post of yours is a pristine example of the purposely ignorant, distracting arguments that necessitate the need for safe spaces so people can actually talk about real shit and get shit done. Sometimes people just want an hour or two without someone who hasn't done the research or doesn't have the life experience being like "but what about what I think."

 

[Zornack]

There's definitely an issue here where safe space is being used to describe both places/groups where the antagonization of marginalized people is strictly prohibited and a push to remove intellectual debate and dissent from college campuses and classrooms.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

For real, folks: people don't create safe spaces exclusively to shelter themselves from the world around them. They're actually very useful as targeted, focused discussion with like-minded peers on how to best handle "the real world" that keeps getting talked about. They're doing exactly what you suggest they should be doing. Educate yourselves on the topic before talking shit about it. So many asses being shown in this thread.

 

[jabuseika]

You never just sat down and played Mario and didn't think about shit for a while? You never went to some trash blockbuster movie and just kind of zoned out for a bit? You never like went for a long walk in the woods away from people and thinking? Nobody's ever "on" 100% of the time. Living the considered life is burdensome and exhausting and sometimes you just gotta put that weight down for a minute. When I need a break from thinking about whatever stressful thing, I take my dog on hikes; my brother surfs; these student groups hang out in a room.

It's not like they go in there and totally forget that institutional racism persists, or that sexual assault is pervasive and under-prosecuted, and then come away vulnerable to the harsh reality of the world. Sometimes you just gotta take a fucken break. So here as in all things we see there's a spectrum to constructing a safe space: taking a fucken break just for like a minute at the "totally permissible and not a problem" end and imposing strict censorship regimes at the "totally not ok" end.

Constructung a safe space is valuable in some ways and dangerous in others because it is a Thing and all Things exhibit this property. So I'm sympathetic both to the impulse to criticize them and to the impulse to construct them, but we gotta approach each individual case on its merits. You can't support or censure one without intimate knowledge of how it is specifically implemented and experienced.

Considering my life was probably completely different from yours.

Go to the movies...? If I was lucky.

We can all have safe spaces, I understand the value. My opinion on the concept doesn't mean I stand against other people having them, if they feel the need to have them.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

This sounds like the rebranding of the concept of free association (i.e., private clubs, groups, members only, etc.--need to meet certain qualifications to participate as heralded by the group at large). This is a great freedom to have, as secured to us in the Constitution. As such, it should definitely be respected. I assume the contentious issue is using public or shared property to conduct the gatherings. I think that should definitely be accommodated. On the flip side though, you need to be prepared for the fact that the same sort of "safe spaces" must be provided to those with opposing ideological positions.

 

[Nibiru]

There's definitely an issue here where safe space is being used to describe both places/groups where the antagonization of marginalized people is strictly prohibited and a push to remove intellectual debate and dissent from college campuses and classrooms.

I am only talking about the latter. The former is kinda what we have always had, no problem. I don't know much that has changed in that realm that would make anyone upset.

 

[mrhyderager]

There's nothing obviously objectionable about safe spaces. They aren't places where you permanently retreat from viewpoints you disagree with; they are places that you occasionally, temporarily retreat to for the sake of your own emotional health. Any they do exist in the "real world," as others have said: support groups and so forth.

Like "trigger warnings" though, they are very much open to abuses and hypocrisy. For example:

1) Do you support safe spaces for people who disagree with you as well as people who agree with you? For example, if you think state universities should officially sanction LGBT support groups that can freely exclude members who they consider a bad fit for the group, would you also support a university-sanctioned group for traditional Christians which can freely exclude members who disagree with traditional Christian sexual morality? Does it go both ways? Or is it only people who agree with you, people who represent groups that you deem socially acceptable, who are allowed safe spaces?

2) Do you declare a huge political activism tent in the middle of campus a safe space, then assault a reporter who is just trying to do his job?

The chief issue is that #2 is what is being argued for on college campuses. I can acknowledge the usefulness of an idea like safe spaces while being wary of it's abuses. I don't see any reason why a University should be forced to create these for students. If an ADULT student wants to create a club or group, most colleges are welcoming of doing so, on their own.

 

[The Technomancer]

For real, folks: people don't create safe spaces exclusively to shelter themselves from the world around them. They're actually very useful as targeted, focused discussion with like-minded peers on how to best handle "the real world" that keeps getting talked about. They're doing exactly what you suggest they should be doing. Educate yourselves on the topic before talking shit about it. So many asses being shown in this thread.

.

 

[jabuseika]

Generally, if you don't have experience with a topic, it's best not to come in and say people who are participants of it are stagnating emotionally and mentally.

Also this post of yours is a pristine example of the purposely ignorant, distracting arguments that necessitate the need for safe spaces so people can actually talk about real shit and get shit done.

I really don't understand where you're going, so I'll just leave it there.

 

[The Technomancer]

For instance, if a relevant number of students rejects evolution, biology classes should not ignore that, but teach the basic evidence for evolution extensively in their introductory courses instead. You might say that it is an opportunity cost to have to defend evolution in detail in 2015, but how else do you want to convince that relevant number of students who still reject it? They won't go away by simply ignoring the issue.

But as a biology professor you probably wouldn't, for example, invite a creationist to speak to the class "just so the class knows both sides"

 

[UncleSporky]

It's really not on any group, person, or entity to change things just because others are too ignorant or stubborn to learn about it.

Nah, you can do anything you like. But people tend to make decisions about how they phrase things to avoid problems, if it can be done. It's not a defeat, it's being able to go about your business with a minimum of interference.

It's like making any other tactical word choice. This isn't changing feminism to peopleism. It's saying "veal" instead of "tiny baby defenseless calf meat."

 

[jabuseika]

Safe spaces vary though. An lgbt group is important because it's still somewhat taboo in certain religions and regions and a place for them to talk to like minded people is very important. Certain issues are intense enough that people only want to talk to like minded people and if they want to make a group then that's cool imo.

To me that's a meeting with like minded people, not a safe space.

I guess I should have been clear on what I thought a safe space was.

Since people are just jumping in with entirely different definitions.

I always thought of a safe space as where you're not allowed to say something, or freely express your opinions or ideas.

I agree with you and have no problem if people feel the need to create a space to discuss controversial issues.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The chief issue is that #2 is what is being argued for on college campuses. I can acknowledge the usefulness of an idea like safe spaces while being wary of it's abuses. I don't see any reason why a University should be forced to create these for students. If an ADULT student wants to create a club or group, most colleges are welcoming of doing so, on their own.

The main reason people prefer things like this be university endorsed is mostly for funding and continued quality of service. If the students could offer the service at the quality of the institution I doubt we would be having this discussion. Its much easer for a school to just say "this room is a designated safe space for LGBT people" than it is for the students to try and pool their resources into maintaining it.

I didnt really understand the issue as schools being forced to provide them either. I understand it as people think they serve no purpose or ahould openly public places be allowed to be transformed into safe spaces.

 

[Milksheikhs]

Last semester I was going to the same university as my abuser *after having left him*. I was paranoid as fuck and for good reasons. He claimed that people of our background/community were watching me. I had some friends in the LGBT community and have always been an ally so I was able to spend a lot of time in the LGBT lounge. This is a designated safe space for the lgbt community and their allies. It is provided an endorsed by the university. It has a pass code to get in. This was so helpful to me and I'm beyond grateful that it was there. It was the one place I didn't have to fear being found or harassed.

 

[ElTorro]

But as a biology professor you wouldn't, for example, invite a creationist to speak to the class "just so the class knows both sides"

I would not invite an intellectually dishonest person. And I would not invite an intellectually honest person without providing the context necessary to asses their claims. But I would certainly present creationists view points, if only to use them as a hook to present the actual evidence. Presenting both sides is ok as long as you don't pretend that both sides are equally valid.

Apart from that, it is fair to note that many controversial speakers, who have been disinvited on the ground of being offensive to some students, do not promote positions that are as obviously wrong as pseudo-scientific positions in the natural sciences.