Originally posted by Nibedicus
Just to clarify, I'm in a bar with some friends. Friend brings in a fem activist that starts spewing about how a fetus isn't really a person and that they should be treated much like you would treat a parasite. I find this very offensive.Safe space right?
If this bar does not tolerate people making pro-choice arguments, then yes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, yes a secret defense bunker is a safe space for civilians. And no one says, life doesn't come with radiation warnings...
The point I was trying to humurously make was that being "against Safe Spaces" cannot be equated to be against "any kind of rules with time or spatial restraints". Rules existed way before a concept such as Safe Spaces were thought up, you cannot retroactively create them without heavily diminishing their relevance.
But I think you were mostly implying that being "against Safe Spaces" is just pretty vague and intellectually lazy from those who just want to be anti-anything for the sake of it. "It must suck because it's new and wants to protect sensibilities!" -shakes cane.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If this bar does not tolerate people making pro-choice arguments, then yes.
Fair enough.
As long as spaces are equal (liberal/conservative ideals can be equally protected amongst patrons), I'm not too against it.
Seems like a pretty big freedom of speech issue, tho, IMO. But I don't really care all that much either way.
Originally posted by Bardock42I don't see a problem with anything you said. So was Surtur just whining about shit he didn't understand?
Sure, so you are sitting in the cafeteria with your buds, Steve and Nancy. Nancy is a mtf transgender person. This girl you are acquainted with Michelle, she sits near you and keeps talking to your group and some people next to her, constantly referring to Nancy as "he". Now you could try to call her out and turn this into a huge scene, but that's uncomfortable for Nancy you prefer not to, or you can leave, but like you still have half a slice of pizza and two chicken nuggets on your plate and the rest of the cafeteria is full, it's just a huge hassle, really sucks. Now, if you were in a designated safe space you could just rightfully ask Nancy to leave, so that's much more pleasant.Similarly you sit around your favourite tree in a hippie circle with your friends, the topic comes on the subject of rape, but there's these guy Hans, you know the kind he's the "Actually..." kind, so everytime someone says something he's like "Actually, most victims of rape lie about it...", "Actually, if a girl is in a relationship it should never count as rape...", etc., he likes playing moronic Devil's Advocate, you know what I mean. This is really uncomfortable for Stephanie, who has been raped, and for you, cause you know about it, you'd like to continue talking about it, but if you call it out the conversation will devolve into a "I'm just saying, blah blah"...so the next time you go into a designated safe space with your friends and hang out there not having to fear that kind of bone headed "I'm a truthsayer in a land of sheeple..." attitude.
That's why I'm for safe spaces. Now the problems that all of the people categorically against safe spaces have seem to be when whole campuses or public areas are designated as safe spaces are used to silence people there, and that's fair enough, we can talk about that, but surely you can see how it's stupid to go from opposition to the extreme to being against the whole concept.
Like, few people say they should have the right to go to the Spanish clubs lesson and start loudly talking French over everybody. I'm pro Spanish-Safe Spaces and the same goes for anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. Safe Spaces.
Again, saying I'm categorically against safe spaces is saying I'm against designated areas (either like a club on a campus or a private area, maybe a bar or something) where the proprietors do not tolerate certain behaviour or language.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, or a room on campus that is assigned to a group, either temporarily or indefinitely. Really depends on the university.Or alternatively a professor may make their class a safe space regarding some topic.
As long as it's not a public room like the cafeteria, the library, or just the campus grounds in general.
No. No professor should have that power. You come to a class to learn and perhaps(GASP!) even have your beliefs challenged, not to be mollycoddled. It's even worse if the university/college in question receives public funds.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
As long as it's not a public room like the cafeteria, the library, or just the campus grounds in general.No. No professor should have that power. You come to a class to learn and perhaps(GASP!) even have your beliefs challenged, not to be mollycoddled. It's even worse if the university/college in question receives public funds.
Professors already have that power, they can ban anyone from their classroom for saying anything. A classroom is not a free speech platform for any halfwit with an opinion that comes along.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Probably not, no. That's not quite as looked down upon.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryWhat is and is not an "acceptable viewpoint" is ultimately arbitrary, and comes down to who is making that decision.
Yeah, and that's the thing. Calling for genocide of 1billion+ people is one thing, but a professor having the ability to ban you from a class for expressing opinions that may not entirely fall on the left side of politics is quite another. No professor should be able to turn a class of a publicly-funded uni/college into some kinda of an ultra-liberal twilight zone. Same goes for ultra-right, of course, but ‒ let's face it ‒ that's far less of a concern in contemporary academia.
Either a professor can ban any viewpoint, or they can ban no viewpoints. It is impossible to enforce a middle ground.
edit: With that said, a student could appeal to the school board to make the professor stop being a **** and censoring them, but the point stands: it then comes down to multiple people, rather than just one, deciding what is and is not acceptable to be discussed.
Originally posted by NemeBro
What is and is not an "acceptable viewpoint" is ultimately arbitrary, and comes down to who is making that decision.Either a professor can ban any viewpoint, or they can ban no viewpoints. It is impossible to enforce a middle ground.
edit: With that said, a student could appeal to the school board to make the professor stop being a **** and censoring them, but the point stands: it then comes down to multiple people, rather than just one, deciding what is and is not acceptable to be discussed.
Yes, but that same thing can be said about pretty much anything in human society, especially when it comes to free speech. Yet, we have learned how to come to some sort of a middle ground and the same needs to happen in institutions of learning.
Now I personally think you should be able to express any viewpoint as long as it is not actively encouraging people to go out and commit crimes.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yes, but that same thing can be said about pretty much anything in human society, especially when it comes to free speech. Yet, we have learned how to come to some sort of a middle ground and the same needs to happen in institutions of learning.Now I personally think you should be able to express any viewpoint as long as it is not actively encouraging people to go out and commit crimes.
This is like basic human right--freedom of speech.
This is why PC language is often used as a tool of oppression. Subjective feelings of hurt should not be a measure of what you or I can say, as long as the condition I mentioned is met.
This is why safe spaces suck.
A lot of Leftists will obviously disagree.