FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

"Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

<<

Grrarrggh

Hogwarts Graduate
Hogwarts Graduate

Posts: 1364

Joined: October 8th, 2014, 10:08 pm

Gender: Female

Post December 18th, 2016, 6:12 am

"Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Are "Safe" spaces and trigger warnings ruining university education? I say if you don't want to know about real life stay home.
Image
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post December 18th, 2016, 3:38 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Absolutely. University is meant to be about opening your mind to different opinions and learning about new subjects and debates, rather than being exposed to the same, old, tired regressive left narrative. All of these "tools" don't do anything but propagandize and infantilize the student collective.

I'm currently studying in the UK, and these "safe spaces" have started to creep in, and I suspect that in the US it's a thousand times worse, one example being a university preventing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from speaking and actually threatening to arrest him if he stepped foot in the campus. What was the topic of his talk? Free speech.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

gavin

User avatar

First Year
First Year

Posts: 108

Joined: October 20th, 2014, 7:05 pm

Location: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Gender: Male

Post December 18th, 2016, 6:30 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

it's ruining the education of the people who choose to use them.

for people like myself, who want no part of safe spaces, it's not a factor. and yes, they should be eliminated immediately, because they're incredibly stupid
Image
<<

Rosey678

User avatar

Mrs. Hikaru Hitachiin
Mrs. Hikaru Hitachiin

Posts: 7276

Joined: May 29th, 2012, 9:02 pm

Location: In the Achievement Hunter office

Gender: Female

Post December 19th, 2016, 12:28 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

What does a safe space involve exactly?
Image
Image
Image
Image
Gryffindor Prefect
<<

Harley Quinn

User avatar

Imagine
Imagine

Posts: 17202

Joined: October 25th, 2014, 1:49 am

Location: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Gender: Female

Post December 21st, 2016, 7:39 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

stefanvh wrote:rather than being exposed to the same, old, tired regressive left narrative.


Lmfao the fact that you, a conservative, called the left narrative regressive is ironic af and funny.

I find it funny when conservatives accuse liberals of having certain negative traits that they themselves have. You all need to look in the fucking mirror lol.

Look, I'm aware of the flaws of the left. But if you're gonna criticize it, use actual valid arguments. The left is far from regressive, which is why they're always wanting to change things, regressives don't wanna change shit, unless it means undoing changes that have already been made, like gay marriage for example, they want it to become illegal again.

stefanvh wrote:I'm currently studying in the UK, and these "safe spaces" have started to creep in, and I suspect that in the US it's a thousand times worse, one example being a university preventing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from speaking and actually threatening to arrest him if he stepped foot in the campus. What was the topic of his talk? Free speech.


I did some research on who this Ben Shapiro dude is, and found out that he's worked for Breitbart (trash, racist news site) and that he's adamant on combating any efforts made to bring institutionalized and systematic racism to light. Hmmmm, I wonder why he wasn't allowed to speak at a university. :think:

What's happening now is that in many cases (not all, of course, there are exceptions. Many times people take this stuff way too far and some things are getting ridiculous) people are separating free speech from hate speech and just plain maliciousness. And many people can't handle that because it's becoming harder to be an asshole without consequences. Just because people were more okay with negative and harmful free speech aka hate speech before, doesn't mean it was okay, and just because that was the norm, doesn't mean it's okay or should be the norm. I'm all for free speech, but I'm 100% against hate speech and I can't stand people who spew ignorance about racism and sexism etc. and then use free speech as an excuse.

Maybe if people would put themselves in the shoes of those who are often on the receiving end of hate speech which is defended by referring to it as free speech, it would be easier to understand why things are changing.
Image
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post December 22nd, 2016, 12:06 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Harley Quinn wrote:Lmfao the fact that you, a conservative, called the left narrative regressive is ironic af and funny.

I find it funny when conservatives accuse liberals of having certain negative traits that they themselves have. You all need to look in the fucking mirror lol.


Please do not take words from my mouth. I never said that the left as a whole was regressive. I specifically referred to a faction of the left which is known as the "regressive left". By the way, that term was coined a few years ago by Maajid Nawaz, a progressive Muslim. Also, most of the mainstream users of the term "regressive left" are liberals, people like Dave Rubin or David Pakman.

Harley Quinn wrote:Look, I'm aware of the flaws of the left.


You say you're aware, but then you go on to exhibit leftist flaws yourself.

Harley Quinn wrote:I did some research on who this Ben Shapiro dude is, and found out that he's worked for Breitbart (trash, racist news site) and that he's adamant on combating any efforts made to bring institutionalized and systematic racism to light.


If you bothered to scrape beyond the surface of what you want to think about Shapiro, you would know that he left Breitbart precisely because of its increased Trumpist, racist, anti-Semitic influence over the past year, as well as over the excusing of the assault of Michelle Fields (also a former Breitbart employee) by Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager. He has over and over again called out the "alt-right" precisely as being a white nationalist and racist movement. So please, don't call what little you read about him as "research".

Harley Quinn wrote:Hmmmm, I wonder why he wasn't allowed to speak at a university.


Maybe because US universities are no longer the bastions of free speech, debate, scrutiny and criticism that they hold themselves up to be?

Harley Quinn wrote:What's happening now is that in many cases (not all, of course, there are exceptions. Many times people take this stuff way too far and some things are getting ridiculous) people are separating free speech from hate speech and just plain maliciousness.

Maybe if people would put themselves in the shoes of those who are often on the receiving end of hate speech which is defended by referring to it as free speech, it would be easier to understand why things are changing.


Again, you've got it wrong. Hate speech IS free speech. The free speech principle was thought of precisely to protect the right to offend. Free speech isn't needed to talk about bunnies and flowers. Who are you (not you personally, but society generally) to decide what is or isn't hate speech? Different people will consider it to be different things. Since the free speech principle is needed to be applied equally, you can't just say to one group of people that they can't express their views "because I'm offended!!1".

You want to fight against hate speech? You need more free speech. You need to combat the hate within the sphere of public debate. By banning and stifling bad views you only ensure that they come back with a vengeance and stronger before, just as the Trump victory showed. This should be a lesson to the liberal left, but instead some are still doubling down on their regressive attitude.

Harley Quinn wrote:I'm all for free speech, but I'm 100% against hate speech and I can't stand people who spew ignorance about racism and sexism etc. and then use free speech as an excuse.


No you aren't. Free speech means free speech, there is no "but" for distateful or offensive opinions. You may not stand those people (and even as a conservative I am very anti-Trump), but that still is not an excuse to stifle it.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Harley Quinn

User avatar

Imagine
Imagine

Posts: 17202

Joined: October 25th, 2014, 1:49 am

Location: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Gender: Female

Post December 22nd, 2016, 3:26 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

stefanvh wrote:
Harley Quinn wrote:Look, I'm aware of the flaws of the left.


You say you're aware, but then you go on to exhibit leftist flaws yourself.


Um, okay?? Did I even claim I was without flaws? Did I ever claim I have all the answers and that my leftist point of view is 100% right? No, I didn't. In my other posts I've even said that I'm not big headed enough to think I know everything and that I don't mind being proven wrong lol.

That wasn't even the point of my post. It was never about me. My point was that it's ironic when conservatives or just people in general criticize or accuse people of having the exact same flaws as themselves. Human beings tend to do this, and I find it funny.

stefanvh wrote:If you bothered to scrape beyond the surface of what you want to think about Shapiro, you would know that he left Breitbart precisely because of its increased Trumpist, racist, anti-Semitic influence over the past year, as well as over the excusing of the assault of Michelle Fields (also a former Breitbart employee) by Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager. He has over and over again called out the "alt-right" precisely as being a white nationalist and racist movement. So please, don't call what little you read about him as "research".


How would you know if I read a little about him or not? Stop making assumptions just because my opinion of him isn't the same as yours. Not agreeing with someone isn't the same as lacking knowledge. That's such an arrogant mentality to have.

I was already aware of why he left Breitbart and that he's anti-Trump. But that doesn't change the fact that he did work for them and they have been racist for longer than a year, so he was totally fine with their ignorance until it became too blatant and disturbing to ignore when Trump ran for president. It also doesn't change the fact that he's dedicated a shit ton of time to debunking systematic and institutionalized racism, which is ignorant.


stefanvh wrote:Again, you've got it wrong. Hate speech IS free speech. The free speech principle was thought of precisely to protect the right to offend. Free speech isn't needed to talk about bunnies and flowers. Who are you (not you personally, but society generally) to decide what is or isn't hate speech? Different people will consider it to be different things. Since the free speech principle is needed to be applied equally, you can't just say to one group of people that they can't express their views "because I'm offended!!1".

You want to fight against hate speech? You need more free speech. You need to combat the hate within the sphere of public debate. By banning and stifling bad views you only ensure that they come back with a vengeance and stronger before, just as the Trump victory showed. This should be a lesson to the liberal left, but instead some are still doubling down on their regressive attitude.


So, if I call your family nasty, trashy whores, is that okay, because of free speech? I mean, they're just words and I have a right to express myself, according to what you just wrote. Are you gonna defend me for saying that? You said that people in general can't decide what is or isn't hate speech. So, technically, you can't get mad at me now.

I'm tired of people who defend statements that oppress people and tell people to deal with it, without trying to understand their point of view. Why not defend those who are being oppressed and verbally abused by people who use hate speech and use free speech as an excuse to do so? Why should anyone defend the oppressors? It's quite twisted to see people defend cruel people's right to use cruel words. Cruelty is never okay.

Can you try to look at this from another point of view for one minute and try to understand why free speech is SOMETIMES in SOME cases problematic? I'm not talking about extreme cases where people try to silence others for things that aren't even offensive but are thought of as offensive because some people are too sensitive, I'm talking about actual hate speech, actual cruel words. That is never okay, whether you understand that or not.

stefanvh wrote:By banning and stifling bad views you only ensure that they come back with a vengeance and stronger before, just as the Trump victory showed.


Kinda like how theft is illegal but people steal anyway, which is why theft should be legal.

translation: if people are in the wrong, they're in the wrong, and society shouldn't have to adapt to racist/ignorant people just to prevent a temper tantrum which manifested itself as a Trump victory.

Society is always changing. Sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Things that would be deemed as unacceptable today was once upon a time the norm. Just because it's been the norm for nazis to march down the street and shout horrible, racist words, doesn't mean that should be allowed. Another example, just because it's been the norm to refer to women who are promiscuous as sluts, doesn't mean that it's okay. Shaming something as natural as human sexuality is downright harmful. All people are trying to do is cut out the absolute harmful side effects of free speech aka hate speech. Now, I know people take this too far and they're trying to keep people from saying things that aren't even harmful, but that's not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the importance of separating free speech from hate speech. Also, just because hate speech is considered okay because it's free speech, doesn't mean it's okay. Words are harmful, sometimes they'll leave deeper wounds than actual physical attacks.


Harley Quinn wrote:I'm all for free speech, but I'm 100% against hate speech and I can't stand people who spew ignorance about racism and sexism etc. and then use free speech as an excuse.


stefanvh wrote:No you aren't. Free speech means free speech, there is no "but" for distateful or offensive opinions. You may not stand those people (and even as a conservative I am very anti-Trump), but that still is not an excuse to stifle it.


I'm not? Really? I had no idea you lived inside my head and were able to fully understand my thoughts on this issue, especially since what I wrote here on PF is quite superficial and doesn't convey my full opinion on this matter, since we'd need to have a real life conversation for that to be possible. Wow. I learn something new every day.
Image
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post December 22nd, 2016, 7:34 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Harley Quinn wrote:Um, okay?? Did I even claim I was without flaws? Did I ever claim I have all the answers and that my leftist point of view is 100% right? No, I didn't. In my other posts I've even said that I'm not big headed enough to think I know everything and that I don't mind being proven wrong lol.


Point taken.

Harley Quinn wrote:How would you know if I read a little about him or not? Stop making assumptions just because my opinion of him isn't the same as yours. Not agreeing with someone isn't the same as lacking knowledge. That's such an arrogant mentality to have.


I never said that you should agree with him. Even I have disagreements with him. I was simply saying that you were wrong about the way you characterized him, nothing more.

Harley Quinn wrote:I was already aware of why he left Breitbart and that he's anti-Trump. But that doesn't change the fact that he did work for them and they have been racist for longer than a year, so he was totally fine with their ignorance until it became too blatant and disturbing to ignore when Trump ran for president.


Or maybe he was already trying to counteract the Trump wing of that site and trying to reform the site and he left because he knew that it was too late and their takeover was finished? You can certainly call them a Trump site now, but to claim that everyone who has ever worked there is OK with what some ignorant people have posted is in itself ignorant.

Also, that's like saying that just because the Democrat party has a far-left wing means that everyone who votes Democrat agrees with them and wants to implement their policies. Or that just because a bunch of Muslims blow themselves up for their religion means that all Muslims are totally fine with their actions.

Harley Quinn wrote:It also doesn't change the fact that he's dedicated a shit ton of time to debunking systematic and institutionalized racism, which is ignorant.


Things should never be taken for granted. Just because someone disagrees with the progressive view of how racism is formed doesn't make them "ignorant". As usual, this is liberal tolerance at its finest: for everything like race, gender and religion, but as soon as someone disagrees politically you have to call them ignorant. This is exactly what I mean when I talked about the regressive left.

Harley Quinn wrote:So, if I call your family nasty, trashy whores, is that okay, because of free speech? I mean, they're just words and I have a right to express myself, according to what you just wrote. Are you gonna defend me for saying that? You said that people in general can't decide what is or isn't hate speech. So, technically, you can't get mad at me now.


Lol, more assumptions. Did I ever say it was OK for you to say that? No, I didn't, just like it's not OK for me to say that about your family. I'm defending your right to free speech, I am not defending what you are saying. Do you get the difference?

Harley Quinn wrote:I'm tired of people who defend statements that oppress people and tell people to deal with it, without trying to understand their point of view. Why not defend those who are being oppressed and verbally abused by people who use hate speech and use free speech as an excuse to do so? Why should anyone defend the oppressors? It's quite twisted to see people defend cruel people's right to use cruel words. Cruelty is never okay.


Who is saying here that hateful statements should just be left there and "deal with it"? That certainly isn't what I'm saying. My point is, the best response to hateful rhetoric and misuse of free speech is more free speech. For example, someone is whining that women are inferior to men, we should let them say what they have to say and then tell them exactly why they are wrong, not only for their sake, but for society's in general.

Harley Quinn wrote:Kinda like how theft is illegal but people steal anyway, which is why theft should be legal.


False analogy. You can't compare misuse of free speech (where the correct response is more free speech) and theft (where the correct response is not more theft).

Harley Quinn wrote:translation: if people are in the wrong, they're in the wrong, and society shouldn't have to adapt to racist/ignorant people just to prevent a temper tantrum which manifested itself as a Trump victory.


It's not just about preventing the "temper tantrum" from Trump supporters. That's certainly one of the reasons why free speech is needed, but the primary reason is because it is a fundamental right and is at the core of a functioning democratic state and society.

All people are trying to do is cut out the absolute harmful side effects of free speech aka hate speech.

Also, just because hate speech is considered okay because it's free speech, doesn't mean it's okay. Words are harmful, sometimes they'll leave deeper wounds than actual physical attacks.


As I've already said, just because hate speech is free speech, doesn't mean it's OK for them to say it, but it also doesn't mean that we should take away their right to say it. People have different ideas on what hateful or offensive speech is and thus to make overarching statements like "words are harmful" does a disservice to fighting against actual abuse, and thus empowers people to claim "hate speech!" just because they said something they didn't agree with. It's a snowball effect. Also, there is a difference between hateful rhetoric and violent rhetoric, which shouldn't be allowed because you have crossed the line from free speech to making threats of violence. There is a clear difference between, say, "All Muslims must die!" and "I hate the religion of Islam".

Harley Quinn wrote:I'm not? Really? I had no idea you lived inside my head and were able to fully understand my thoughts on this issue, especially since what I wrote here on PF is quite superficial and doesn't convey my full opinion on this matter, since we'd need to have a real life conversation for that to be possible. Wow. I learn something new every day.


I don't claim to understand every single thing you think about this issue, but one thing is clear, you didn't seem for free speech as much as you would like me to believe. Especially given the whole "free speech, BUT" meme (which has been used thousands of times to justify the limitation of freedom of speech).
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Grrarrggh

Hogwarts Graduate
Hogwarts Graduate

Posts: 1364

Joined: October 8th, 2014, 10:08 pm

Gender: Female

Post December 23rd, 2016, 2:00 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

I've got to agree that to have free speech ALL speech must be free. That also goes for certain actions, such as burning a flag or religious symbol, not kneeling for the anthem etc. No matter how nasty what some says is, they have the right to say it. Now, should they take that speech and put it in the action column (aside from the above mentioned) that's when they should be punished.

If you don't like what someone is saying tell them, tell others, don't buy things from them, don't vote for them. There are tons of things you can do to counteract it. All those things rely on your freedoms. When you start taking away someone else's freedom of speech soon you'll find yours gone too. And you know what, you'll have deserved to lose it.
Image
<<

Thane Blackthorn

User avatar

Hogwarts Graduate
Hogwarts Graduate

Posts: 1323

Joined: July 15th, 2011, 5:30 am

Location: The Vortex

Post January 17th, 2017, 10:56 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~~~Noam Chomsky



^You have no idea.

Most people's greatest accomplishment will be dying and releasing their molecules back into nature rather than holding them captive in a cesspool of genetics that only produces stupidity.
<<

GinChaser

User avatar

Fourth Year
Fourth Year

Posts: 443

Joined: January 13th, 2017, 9:35 pm

Gender: Male

Post March 7th, 2017, 11:00 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

I think people are too sensitive these days.
Image

Image

Image


Thanks dryad, you fantastic fish, you.
<<

Arabella

User avatar

Arabella
Arabella

Posts: 17203

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 4:21 am

Location: In my field of paper flowers

Post March 18th, 2017, 6:08 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Rosey678 wrote:What does a safe space involve exactly?

I'm going to quote this again, because I'm not sure what they are or how they work either. This wasn't a thing in my day. Makes me feel old.

On free speech and hate speech in general...I'm all for allowing people to say on a public platform to say whatever until it disrespects and or threatens the mere existence of certain groups of people. That doesn't mean they can never express these views ever but it should be kept to private. Like conversations, or like if they run their own radio show or some other platform. But they shouldn't HAVE to be given a platform to spew hate. Like that guy from Breitbart not being allowed to talk at a university...I didn't realize they were obligated to give a platform to anybody who asks them for one. If they think his speech is disrespectful to some of their students and potentially corrosive to the atmosphere of their community they should absolutely be allowed to deny him. Same for a radio station, they don't have to give a bigot a show, unless they want him there.

I've also noticed a lot of the same people (not necessarily anyone in this thread) who decry "snow flakes" and hate/divisive speech being silenced are AWFULLY sensitive when anybody accuses them of being racist, sexist etc. It's most visible with people seething at how nasty Hillary Clinton was for giving into emotion once and calling Trump supporters deplorable. I've seen a lot of people on facebook since November being all "DON'T DEMONIZE ME JUST BECAUSE I VOTED TRUMP. You can't paint an entire group of people with one brush" and yet they were happy to vote for him after he did just that since DAY ONE and never stopped. Uh-huh :eyebrow:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hufflepuff Prefect
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 18th, 2017, 1:28 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:I'm all for allowing people to say on a public platform to say whatever until it disrespects and or threatens the mere existence of certain groups of people.


But you are conflating simple disrespect with violent rhetoric. There is a clear difference between saying "I don't like Muslims" and "I will burn them to death".

Arabella wrote:they shouldn't HAVE to be given a platform to spew hate. Like that guy from Breitbart not being allowed to talk at a university...I didn't realize they were obligated to give a platform to anybody who asks them for one. If they think his speech is disrespectful to some of their students and potentially corrosive to the atmosphere of their community they should absolutely be allowed to deny him. Same for a radio station, they don't have to give a bigot a show, unless they want him there.


Actually, the best way to combat the hatred is in fact to allow these people to speak, that way you know exactly what they stand for. Banning people you don't like makes you seem like the one who is intolerant, not the potential speaker. Also, that guy was allowed to speak, the reason why it got called off was precisely because of the ban-happy rioters.

Arabella wrote:I've also noticed a lot of the same people (not necessarily anyone in this thread) who decry "snow flakes" and hate/divisive speech being silenced are AWFULLY sensitive when anybody accuses them of being racist, sexist etc.


On this I will mostly agree with you though. It amazes me how these people support the most special snowflake politician in the history of the United States, while at the same time condemning special snowflake students. I condemn all snowflakes, whether they be from the left or the right. ;)

Arabella wrote: It's most visible with people seething at how nasty Hillary Clinton was for giving into emotion once and calling Trump supporters deplorable.


But even as someone who supported Clinton against Trump, she should still have not done that, and the people apologizing for it are misguided. It was a massive tactical blunder. You won't get votes by demonizing potential Trump voters, in fact you will make them more adamant that their vote is the correct one to get rid of the "condescending coastline elitists".

Arabella wrote:they were happy to vote for him after he did just that since DAY ONE and never stopped.


Except that people supported Trump for different reasons. Some genuinely voted for all the deplorable stuff he's said, others voted for him simply because they were concerned about trade and economic reasons - which was why all those two-time Obama counties in the Midwest flipped for Trump.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Arabella

User avatar

Arabella
Arabella

Posts: 17203

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 4:21 am

Location: In my field of paper flowers

Post March 19th, 2017, 6:31 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

stefanvh wrote:
Arabella wrote:I'm all for allowing people to say on a public platform to say whatever until it disrespects and or threatens the mere existence of certain groups of people.


But you are conflating simple disrespect with violent rhetoric. There is a clear difference between saying "I don't like Muslims" and "I will burn them to death".

Well yes, there are different levels to this.

they shouldn't HAVE to be given a platform to spew hate. Like that guy from Breitbart not being allowed to talk at a university...I didn't realize they were obligated to give a platform to anybody who asks them for one. If they think his speech is disrespectful to some of their students and potentially corrosive to the atmosphere of their community they should absolutely be allowed to deny him. Same for a radio station, they don't have to give a bigot a show, unless they want him there.


Actually, the best way to combat the hatred is in fact to allow these people to speak, that way you know exactly what they stand for. Banning people you don't like makes you seem like the one who is intolerant, not the potential speaker. Also, that guy was allowed to speak, the reason why it got called off was precisely because of the ban-happy rioters.

Oh, you were talking about that Milly Yanilly guy? Yeah the rioting that happened there was absolutely wrong, but the students weren't wrong in general to express/protest that they didn't want him there and the university wouldn't be wrong for listening to them and calling it off. That's their freedom of speech. Again, nobody is obligated to give anybody else a platform. Nobody is obligated to listen.


This reminds me of a tumblr post I saw about Oprah doing an early show talking to neo-nazis. She ended up concluding that it did more harm than good to have them on. She was originally of your opinion, that exposing them would harm their cause, but it actually strengthens it just by having them on and legitimizing their stance. ""I realized in that moment that I was doing more to empower them than I was to expose them. And since that moment, I've never done a show like that again," Oprah later said." Here's an article on it http://en.newsner.com/in-1988-these-neo ... about/news

Plus, look at all the exposure the media gave Trump so that people could see how awful he was, and then look at the result.


It's most visible with people seething at how nasty Hillary Clinton was for giving into emotion once and calling Trump supporters deplorable.


But even as someone who supported Clinton against Trump, she should still have not done that, and the people apologizing for it are misguided. It was a massive tactical blunder. You won't get votes by demonizing potential Trump voters, in fact you will make them more adamant that their vote is the correct one to get rid of the "condescending coastline elitists".

Yes it was a mistake, but a mistake Trump was allowed to make REPEATEDLY and he WON. The people who complain about that mistake the most are the people who loved Trump for attacking people and "telling it like it is". They think it makes him "brave" and "honest" but it makes Hillary "nasty". It's both hypocrisy and, I think, a sexist double standard.

they were happy to vote for him after he did just that since DAY ONE and never stopped.


Except that people supported Trump for different reasons. Some genuinely voted for all the deplorable stuff he's said, others voted for him simply because they were concerned about trade and economic reasons - which was why all those two-time Obama counties in the Midwest flipped for Trump.

Maybe they voted for other reasons, but at best they were ok with his vileness. They threw other groups of people under the bus because they thought it would help them out personally. And guess what? If those groups of people have to suffer the consequences of that, so do the reluctant Trump voters. And their consequence is being judged for their vote. They can shut up and deal as far as I'm concerned. They're getting off easy. And remember, THEY are the ones who decided disrespect and stereotyping was presidential. A vote for Trump is an abdication of the moral high ground in this area, and you cannot convince me otherwise.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hufflepuff Prefect
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 19th, 2017, 4:41 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:the students weren't wrong in general to express/protest that they didn't want him there and the university wouldn't be wrong for listening to them and calling it off. That's their freedom of speech. Again, nobody is obligated to give anybody else a platform. Nobody is obligated to listen.


But there's a difference between protesting someone's views, and actively banning them just because you don't like them. I find Yiannnopoulos distasteful myself, but if he would come to my campus I would not protest his presence, but what he stands for. I remember in my first year at uni when a very far-left and anti-Semitic party leader came to speak and there was no such effort to block him despite his views. I just didn't go to it - I had better stuff to do.

And the trouble is, campuses haven't just stop at there with their banning policies. They've blocked perfectly reasonable people, like Maryam Namazie, a human rights activist, to speak at a campus in my country, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another activist to speak at Brandeis University. People who can be considered to be liberals. Why? Because they dared to utter a single critical word about Islam - not even about Muslims, but about pernicious religious doctrine. Plenty of other cases too, like I mentioned above. That's why banning speakers has a snowball effect.

And yes, it may be legally protected under the First Amendment to not want someone to speak at their campus, but we're talking about the principle of free speech. Because there's no point having a free speech law if the climate is so censorious and politically correct. And as I've said above, university is meant to be a place where you expose yourself to all sorts of views, opinions, and debates, whether you love them or hate them, as part of maturation process and evolving into a member of society. It's not where you should be able to just pick and choose whatever things you can listen to.

Arabella wrote:Maybe they voted for other reasons, but at best they were ok with his vileness


They may have overlooked the other stupid shit he's said and done during his campaign - not that I consider his protectionist economic rhetoric to be stupid, but anyway - but maybe that's because they felt that however reprehensible he is, he could help turn the tide and bring their jobs back. People vote with their wallets, in terms of bread and butter issues. Hell, they may even have disagreed with Trump's rhetoric against minorities, but what's the point of that if you don't have a stable job?

Funnily enough, despite me definitely preferring Hillary over Bernie in terms of policies, the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party has done a far better job of outreach to people who voted Trump. We need to do a better job of understanding why they preferred Trump instead of the constant demonization of all Trump voters. That's not going to bring the Democrats back to relevance, that I can assure you.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Arabella

User avatar

Arabella
Arabella

Posts: 17203

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 4:21 am

Location: In my field of paper flowers

Post March 19th, 2017, 7:36 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

There is no such thing, really, as banning somebody from speaking somewhere when there is no obligation to let them do so. I can't just go up to a university and say I want to give a speech about unicorns and expect them to indulge me. They have a right to be selective about who they let speak. Should a church have to give over the pulpit to a satanist for a sunday just because they asked? I mean, free speech! right?

Hell, they may even have disagreed with Trump's rhetoric against minorities, but what's the point of that if you don't have a stable job?

Hell, they may have disagreed with Trump's rhetoric against minorities, but what's the point if they give him the keys to make that harmful rhetoric a reality anyway?
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hufflepuff Prefect
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 19th, 2017, 10:35 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:There is no such thing, really, as banning somebody from speaking somewhere when there is no obligation to let them do so.


Really? Those examples I gave, as well as many others, seem to suggest the opposite.

Arabella wrote:Hell, they may have disagreed with Trump's rhetoric against minorities, but what's the point if they give him the keys to make that harmful rhetoric a reality anyway?


How is that answering my question?
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Grrarrggh

Hogwarts Graduate
Hogwarts Graduate

Posts: 1364

Joined: October 8th, 2014, 10:08 pm

Gender: Female

Post March 19th, 2017, 11:38 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

stefanvh wrote:
Funnily enough, despite me definitely preferring Hillary over Bernie in terms of policies, the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party has done a far better job of outreach to people who voted Trump. We need to do a better job of understanding why they preferred Trump instead of the constant demonization of all Trump voters. That's not going to bring the Democrats back to relevance, that I can assure you.


I would agree except I don't think a lot of Trump voters HAVE a good/logical reason for voting for Trump.
Image
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 20th, 2017, 1:14 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Grrarrggh wrote:I would agree except I don't think a lot of Trump voters HAVE a good/logical reason for voting for Trump.


I don't disagree. I mean, I consider even the economic/trade/protectionist reasons for which people voted for Trump that I cited above to be bad; but they aren't condemnable.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Arabella

User avatar

Arabella
Arabella

Posts: 17203

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 4:21 am

Location: In my field of paper flowers

Post March 20th, 2017, 5:12 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:There is no such thing, really, as banning somebody from speaking somewhere when there is no obligation to let them do so.


Really? Those examples I gave, as well as many others, seem to suggest the opposite.


I suppose its arguing semantics, but I'd not call it banning them, I'd call it declining them. Banning suggests that they have a right to even be speaking there. Like anybody can join a forum, and so naughty members get banned. But not just anybody can speak at any institution they like.

Arabella wrote:Hell, they may have disagreed with Trump's rhetoric against minorities, but what's the point if they give him the keys to make that harmful rhetoric a reality anyway?


How is that answering my question?
[/quote]
It wasn't, it was making a counterpoint. "Well I didn't support the divisive rhetoric" is a pathetic excuse/defense when being criticized for voting Trump. The rhetoric and atmosphere is no less divisive and the resultant actions are no less harmful because some of his voters didn't like the mean stuff. They still gave him the keys to power and his team is constantly using the excuse that "this is what the people voted for" as if that gives him a free license to do whatever.

To answer your question...the point would be moral integrity. The point would be making a stand against hate and protecting the vulnerable. Your questions also assumes that they had any good reason to believe he would actually make things better for them. It was well known that he is an inexperienced unstable liar, fraud and selfish money hoarder. It was obvious, they were warned. It's as if they bought a dodgy car from a dealer everybody warned them about. Everybody told them they were going to get sold a lemon, but they still bought it from that dealer anyway. But I guess we can't criticize that decision and point out that their car is a lemon because it might hurt their feelings. Tell me, why do you only care about their feelings, and not the feelings of marginalized groups targeted by hate speech?
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hufflepuff Prefect
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 20th, 2017, 9:29 am

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:Banning suggests that they have a right to even be speaking there.


Again, it's not about "right", it's about principle. Especially since you can't say that you're upholding free speech at your institution while restricting someone's speech purely because they don't agree.

Arabella wrote:To answer your question...the point would be moral integrity. The point would be making a stand against hate and protecting the vulnerable. Your questions also assumes that they had any good reason to believe he would actually make things better for them. It was well known that he is an inexperienced unstable liar, fraud and selfish money hoarder. It was obvious, they were warned.


So... you're basically saying that in their view, they should have just placed their jobs, livelihoods and families on the sacrificial altar... just to make themselves feel better?

And they did have a good reason for believing that, given that in their view Hillary was representing the status quo, openly supporting the very policies that they thought led to their economic deprivation. And apart from the inexperienced and unstable part, they can argue that Hillary was in some ways doing the exact same thing.

Again, I consider their reasons bad, but let's not exaggerate.

Arabella wrote:Tell me, why do you only care about their feelings, and not the feelings of marginalized groups targeted by hate speech?


That's making a boatload of assumptions to which I will not respond to.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Arabella

User avatar

Arabella
Arabella

Posts: 17203

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 4:21 am

Location: In my field of paper flowers

Post March 20th, 2017, 7:44 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Well in this thread you are arguing bigots should be given platforms at all times but also arguing against criticizing people for voting Trump. Sure seems you care more about bigots* than people targeted by them. You are defending the one while arguing that in the name of free speech it should be open season on the other. Why do they get to demonize people just for existing but I can't judge people for their political decisions?

*
Spoiler: show
I've already made my case that although not every single Trump voter is necessarily themselves a bigot (though honestly I think a lot of them are in denial that they are bigoted but anyway) they are as good as a bigot because that is who they voted for and put into power.


So... you're basically saying that in their view, they should have just placed their jobs, livelihoods and families on the sacrificial altar... just to make themselves feel better?

And they did have a good reason for believing that, given that in their view Hillary was representing the status quo, openly supporting the very policies that they thought led to their economic deprivation. And apart from the inexperienced and unstable part, they can argue that Hillary was in some ways doing the exact same thing.

Again, I consider their reasons bad, but let's not exaggerate.

No, not just to make themselves feel better. To stand up for marginalized people and against hate. It's not just symbolic, it has real world repercussions. And no matter what they thought of the status quo, no, they had no good reason to think that Trump was the antidote. If your bus is crashing you don't put a drunk in the driver's seat to stop it crashing. They had other options than voting Trump or Hillary you know.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hufflepuff Prefect
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 20th, 2017, 10:12 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Arabella wrote:Well in this thread you are arguing bigots should be given platforms at all times but also arguing against criticizing people for voting Trump [...] Why do they get to demonize people just for existing but I can't judge people for their political decisions?


When did I ever say that people who criticize Trump voters should not have a platform? I'm all for discussion, from whichever side of the spectrum. Just because I have my views on how to deal with the Trump phenomenon doesn't mean I'm being censorious. Also, when did I say that bigots should be given platforms? I said everyone should be allowed to have a platform, no matter how distateful their views, as long as they aren't advocating for violence.

Arabella wrote:No, not just to make themselves feel better. To stand up for marginalized people and against hate. It's not just symbolic, it has real world repercussions.


And potentially losing everything they had, that wouldn't be a "real world repercussion"?

Arabella wrote:And no matter what they thought of the status quo, no, they had no good reason to think that Trump was the antidote.


Given that Trump was by far the most prominent one hammering the themes that those particular voters cared about, and not anyone else, including the other options, that would fit the image. Naive? Yes. But not anywhere as near as condemnable as you're making it out to be.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
<<

Grrarrggh

Hogwarts Graduate
Hogwarts Graduate

Posts: 1364

Joined: October 8th, 2014, 10:08 pm

Gender: Female

Post March 20th, 2017, 11:21 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

stefanvh wrote:
Arabella wrote:Well in this thread you are arguing bigots should be given platforms at all times but also arguing against criticizing people for voting Trump [...] Why do they get to demonize people just for existing but I can't judge people for their political decisions?


When did I ever say that people who criticize Trump voters should not have a platform? I'm all for discussion, from whichever side of the spectrum. Just because I have my views on how to deal with the Trump phenomenon doesn't mean I'm being censorious. Also, when did I say that bigots should be given platforms? I said everyone should be allowed to have a platform, no matter how distateful their views, as long as they aren't advocating for violence.

Arabella wrote:No, not just to make themselves feel better. To stand up for marginalized people and against hate. It's not just symbolic, it has real world repercussions.


And potentially losing everything they had, that wouldn't be a "real world repercussion"?

Arabella wrote:And no matter what they thought of the status quo, no, they had no good reason to think that Trump was the antidote.


Given that Trump was by far the most prominent one hammering the themes that those particular voters cared about, and not anyone else, including the other options, that would fit the image. Naive? Yes. But not anywhere as near as condemnable as you're making it out to be.


But how do you "market" yourself as a candidate to people who don't or won't understand how the world works and why it works that way? That it's NOT illegal immigrants who are tanking the economy or stealing their jobs. That being a Muslim doesn't mean you hate North America? That the coal and steel industries aren't going to make big strides and come back as they were in the 70s or even 90s? Unless you straight up lie to them what can you do?
Image
<<

stefanvh

User avatar

Quidditch Player
Quidditch Player

Posts: 1984

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 6:38 pm

Location: London, UK

Gender: Male

Post March 20th, 2017, 11:44 pm

Re: "Safe" Spaces ruining university education?

Grrarrggh wrote:But how do you "market" yourself as a candidate to people who don't or won't understand how the world works and why it works that way? ... Unless you straight up lie to them what can you do?


Obama marketed himself to those same people who voted for Trump on economic issues, particularly in 2008. Even Hillary could have pulled it off, but instead she just assumed that the Rust Belt/Blue Wall would go blue by default, since that's what happened since 1992. She didn't even visit Wisconsin ONCE. Hillary should have bolstered those states, because it was pretty clear from the start that Trump was eyeing them.
Image
Thanks to Lumiere for this!

Harry/Ginny 4ever <3

Pottermore username: StoneSnitch10208

Mod of /r/HarryandGinny

Image
Next

Return to Politics & News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron