Take the example given: A group of students declared that, in order for there to be a "safe space" to "discuss racism", they needed to exclude all those corrupting white students. They obviously envisioned the ideal of free speech as one where a certain troublesome group is shunted off into a separate forum so that the main group can "speak freely". To them "separate but equal" is the ideal expression of free speech.
That's a bit regressive, don't you think?
"Sometimes people DO need safe spaces", you say. To what end?
We live our entire lives in tightly segmented groups, moving from one group to the other all day long. These are codified and enforced by bonds of family, work environment, geographical location, language, income, appearance, search algorithms and active filtering of our online presence and perceptions, et cetera et cetera. I think that in this modern era, people have become so reliant on these segregations to filter out "upsetting" input that they have started to believe that when they ARE exposed to it, the solution is to tighten the filtering, rather than confront and assimilate the input until it is no longer upsetting. As if requiring others to self-censor is somehow morally equivalent to changing their actual opinions.
Nevertheless, my grumpy-old-man ideas aside, I think you can agree that as soon as we start seeing "safe spaces" being codified into laws, it's time to raise some hackles.
Much of the modern era of entertainment and political discussion revolves around drama queens. Are you pointing out that the college girls are drama queens? Or the "brat with a camera"?
"Sometimes people DO need safe spaces", you say. To what end?
To, uh....feel safe?
Sorry if that sounds a bit flip, but that's really what it boils down to. A full exploration of the concept of "safe spaces," their legitimate purposes, and the needs they serve, much less the controversies surrounding the issue would extend WAY beyond the limits of what can be adequately covered in a response to an LJ post, even if I had the time or the energy to provide that, which I don't. There's plenty of information out there, if you're really interested, but you obviously aren't, so pardon me if I don't feel like spending my limited free time rounding up resources for you to pooh-pooh.
I did run across one link that MIGHT interest you and/or others here, since it is actually related to the stuff that has been going on at the U. of MO. It definitely helped me understand the issues underlying this post:
People Don't Hate Safe Spaces, They Hate The People They Protect (https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015-11-10-people-dont-hate-safe-spaces-they-hate-the-people-they-protect-missouri)
My opinion of that editorial soured when I passed this sentence:
"Is it possible that men who are apologists for domestic violence and sexual assault would be the loudest critics of spaces that sometimes exclude men?"
This is the type of reasoning the whole editorial is constructed around. Essentially, "if you don't like safe spaces, it's because you're a racist/sexist/violent oppressor." Of course, the fucking title of the editorial makes that clear, doesn't it.
The first commenter on the piece sums up my position pretty well:
"Aside from the crackpots that populate the political spectrum, most people who look askance at "safe space" and "trigger warning" and "micro-aggression" do so because they believe or think those concepts stifle free expression of ideas, or are unhealthy for an open, pluralistic society or foster the swaddling or cocooning of adolescents that will ill serve them in the broader, competitive world."
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-12-05 06:44 am (UTC)Take the example given: A group of students declared that, in order for there to be a "safe space" to "discuss racism", they needed to exclude all those corrupting white students. They obviously envisioned the ideal of free speech as one where a certain troublesome group is shunted off into a separate forum so that the main group can "speak freely". To them "separate but equal" is the ideal expression of free speech.
That's a bit regressive, don't you think?
"Sometimes people DO need safe spaces", you say. To what end?
We live our entire lives in tightly segmented groups, moving from one group to the other all day long. These are codified and enforced by bonds of family, work environment, geographical location, language, income, appearance, search algorithms and active filtering of our online presence and perceptions, et cetera et cetera. I think that in this modern era, people have become so reliant on these segregations to filter out "upsetting" input that they have started to believe that when they ARE exposed to it, the solution is to tighten the filtering, rather than confront and assimilate the input until it is no longer upsetting. As if requiring others to self-censor is somehow morally equivalent to changing their actual opinions.
Nevertheless, my grumpy-old-man ideas aside, I think you can agree that as soon as we start seeing "safe spaces" being codified into laws, it's time to raise some hackles.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-05 07:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-05 08:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-05 05:30 pm (UTC)Perhaps both, to answer your question, but I wasn't there.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-09 01:27 am (UTC)Nope.
"Sometimes people DO need safe spaces", you say. To what end?
To, uh....feel safe?
Sorry if that sounds a bit flip, but that's really what it boils down to. A full exploration of the concept of "safe spaces," their legitimate purposes, and the needs they serve, much less the controversies surrounding the issue would extend WAY beyond the limits of what can be adequately covered in a response to an LJ post, even if I had the time or the energy to provide that, which I don't. There's plenty of information out there, if you're really interested, but you obviously aren't, so pardon me if I don't feel like spending my limited free time rounding up resources for you to pooh-pooh.
I did run across one link that MIGHT interest you and/or others here, since it is actually related to the stuff that has been going on at the U. of MO. It definitely helped me understand the issues underlying this post:
People Don't Hate Safe Spaces, They Hate The People They Protect (https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015-11-10-people-dont-hate-safe-spaces-they-hate-the-people-they-protect-missouri)
no subject
Date: 2015-12-09 09:02 pm (UTC)This is the type of reasoning the whole editorial is constructed around. Essentially, "if you don't like safe spaces, it's because you're a racist/sexist/violent oppressor." Of course, the fucking title of the editorial makes that clear, doesn't it.
The first commenter on the piece sums up my position pretty well: