Tampitump

And you guys should stop making everything a one-way street. But I get it, you're unassailable, and right about everything. Not even the smallest fraction of my arguments could get even the most tacit "I kind of see where you're going with that, or why you might think this is the case....." It's a one-way street. http://www.thebestschools.org/magazine/speech-codes-and-safe-spaces/

You're right. It doesn't. I'm so sorry for my stupidity guys. I see now that I was unequivocally wrong about every single aspect of every single thing I said on this topic down to the punctuation marks. I also see how unassailable you guys are and incapable of having incorrect positions. What the fuck was I even thinking challenging you guys? You guys were right for not conceding even the slightest portion of any of my statements, because really, what was there to concede? Every single point I made, without exception, was false, bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and idiotic. Yes yes, I see now. The goal should be to sanitize the college experience so that everyone is happy at every point in time. We should not challenge the worldviews of the students, or expose them to facts that may make them uncomfortable. We must protect students from harsh realities. We must make the learning material, as well as the environment, conform to the student's comfort level, rather than ask them to learn troubling facts. In fact, lets just do away with academia altogether. College should be about happiness, inclusion, and preserving the feelings of the students, not teaching them about life or the real world.

You win swansont, you win. Truce, I give up. I can't even even get a "Hey, I see where you're coming from on that, but..." I'm wrong without exception across the board. Absolutely nothing in my position is correct or reasonable.

Now there's a good summary of my argument. I don't disagree that people deserve to be able to get away from hate and oppression. But my concern for what might happen with safe spaces, the abuses of them, the encroachment of their philosophies into academia (which have already happened in the form of trigger warnings), the tendency to be more about promotIng an ideology and victim narrative rather than truly helping minorities, the fact that it could very well impede a student's ability to learn facts because they can't be "triggered", etc etc etc. My concern for these things (which I think is legitimate) overrides my agreement with you on that point, and so I don't support safe spaces or PC ideology. I try to look at the big picture and what these things, when taken too far, are likely to cause for the world.

No, that's not it at all. I don't know why you guys can accuse me of binary thinking and straw men when you post things like this towards me. Standing your ground does not mean you're right. BLM could give equal attention to criticizing the inner workings of the African American community, including the staggering numbers of black on black crime that happen in much higher amounts than police brutality, but they don't. There could be reformists (and there are) granting equal criticisms to the community itself whilst fighting bigotry and oppression, but this kills the narrative of liberal ideology in which the minorities absolutely cannot be brought into question. The oppression they face by the majority is the only oppression they face, and that's it. The same is true for the Islamic community. We could be propping up Maajid and Ayaan for trying to fight in favor of women's rights and secular values, and against Jihadism and Islamism in the Islamic community, but instead we grant higher voices to the ones who say "don't criticize me you bigot!" Alas, you have safe spaces, trigger warnings, victim culture, the promotion regressive liberalism, and not a damn thing solved in the way of true social justice. There is nothing in my position that advocates denigrating, assaulting, or allowing minorities to be mistreated, and if I saw hateful acts of this sort on my college's campus, you bet I would defend these people. But there is no good reasons to shield anyone from opposing ideas.

Wrong, this was not my argument. Not even remotely. You got it completely, miserably wrong. Sorry. You're just wrong about my argument. You're not even on the right track. So let me clear it up: What I said was...............MLK and Rosa Parks didn't need safe spaces because they believed in standing up for themselves, which resulted in massive movements that made REAL social change. Playing the victim and being coddled does nothing to help you or prepare you to stand your ground, and it does nothing to end the hateful things people are saying, or the racial violence or oppression that is happening. All it does is allow you a special right to not be exposed to reality. Maybe if minorities were encouraged to stand their ground with their oppressors, perhaps social change for them could happen for them much sooner. Retreating to a safe spaces does little but make you weaker and less likely to survive in the real world.

These statements were in response to the guy who said "you do know that Rosa Parks and MLK were arrested and assassinated respectively, right?". The person went to ask if I was advocating that people do not have the right to avoid assault, harassment, or stalking. THIS, my friend (as well as your entire post here) are straw men. I pointed out that no one is running from lynch mobs, or being physically abused on college campuses, at least not to the scope and scale of the 1960s south. I;m not saying it DOESN'T happen. I'm saying that it is much more likely that these safe spaces are being utilized by sensitive people who don't want their feelings hurt in the other free-speech areas around campus. My response was a perfectly relevant response to his idiotic question. I'm saying that these people utilizing safe spaces on college campuses are not running from lynch mobs or assault. If they were, I'd know about it because it would be in the news, and safe spaces wouldn't help these things one fucking bit. I did not propose the topic of assault and violence, whoever made this argument did. I was merely reacting to it. I know I know... I cannot possibly be right about anything I've said. I've proven to be a volatile goof ball who swears and doesn't make good arguments. I'm always wrong. I get it. You guys are the intellectually-superior men of science who always have the best arguments and positions, and there is not even one small fraction of my position that can be agreed with or acknowledged to make even a small modicum of sense. I'm wrong across the board, and without exception. I get it. I'm aware. Thanks.

You'll have to excuse me for not being in the same education universe as you. I admit that I'm uninformed on pretty much every topic you can think of. I go to a community college with a 100% acceptance rate, and am from the rural south where diversity and higher education are all but discouraged for most of us. My parents are high school drop outs who are in the logging business. I do not go to an elite, Ivy league (or even remotely legitimate) college, and there is no universe wherein my upbringing would have fostered an ability for me to have the potential to go to one. Those are just facts that I will have to concede you. The point is that I have every right to go there and not be told that I'm offending someone's "safe space". Why should I care what triggers you? Get over it. And you still failed to see or acknowledge the big picture. Listen to what many tenured professors are saying about the encroachment of politically correct, postmodernist ideology into academic research. Like Gad Saad says, how can you teach biology properly when people assert that some gender/sex topics are "triggering topics". It is insane. Its okay to keep people from being legitimately oppressed, but safe spaces only weaken minorities by giving them a luxury that the real world will not provide them.

I'm saying that at some point, skepticism turns into obstinate unresponsiveness. You'd be sitting there letting the lion maul you to death because no one has run F MRI scans on its brain to provide conclusive evidence for its intentions. That's my point.

I may be a total asshole, a piece of shit, a redneck, a fowl mouth, and a non-critical-thinker, but I'd wager we'd all be dead if everyone in the world were as obstinate and stubborn as the people here. Use science and skepticism to investigate the natural world all you want, but in many social issues, you have to speculate, you have to look at the big picture, you have to get a little spunk to you, you have to be a little reactionary. You can't break everything down to tiny fragments and analyse every minute detail of it, because there's hardly any difference between certain social issues when you look at them on the micro level. You have to look at the big picture, you have to look at the trends, and what certain social things are promoting, rather than the strict definitions of things. I agree that a safe space to get away from abusers and harassment does not sound like such a bad thing, but neither does using a calculator vs learning how to solve algebraic problems on my own. This type of stuff promotes a mentality that you don't have to deal with reality when you don't want to. The real world will not do this for the students when they leave college. I'd agree with this if I didn't sense that you guys are deliberately opposing me because you don't like me. I say this because I've been accused of not providing evidence or reasons for my assertions directly after providing just that. Much of my evidence and reasons get flat out ignored on here, and asserted that I never defended my argument, when I exquisitely did. The people here are not being skeptical, they are being impotent and unresponsive. There's skepticism and high evidence standards, then there's just unresponsiveness, numbness. The lion has already mauled you, there's no time to sequence its genome to find out what its motivations may be.

Okay, you guys are right. I support safe spaces now.

. it would be irony if I was telling you that you had no right to say what you're saying. I'm merely pointing out your impotence and stupidity.

Seriously dude? You guys criticize me for not having sound ideas, and you come up with horse shit like this? Assault IS a health risk. Verbal abuse? Nothing in my position supports verbal abuse. Verbal abuse needs to be punished. What I'm protesting is the idea that you can retreat to a designated area on oublic grounds wherein you're free from being challenged, and other people don't have the right to speak their mind aound you if you don't like what they're saying. You do not have the right to thought-police or word-police people in public.

I'm done, you just can't fix stupid. You can't give people balls who clearly have vaginas between their legs.

Umm no because that has nothing to do with free speech and the free exchange of ideas or social change. There are legitimate health risks to second hand smoking. That is an act worthy controlling to some degree by not allowingnit in certain parts where others could be exposed to the chemical.

These few people made change because they dared bear it out under hard circumstances. If they had retreated to safe spaces, white supremacy would have never ended. Change happens when you grow some fucking testicles (not that anyone in this forum knows what its like to have those), join the debate, stand your ground, and demand the respect you deserve. YOu don't win debates by cutting off someone else's free speech, and demanding to be in a place where you can't be criticized in public.There is no one on my college campus (and I've been at all parts of it at nearly every part of the day) who is oppressing minorities or seeking to oppress minorities. There aren't lynch mobs chasing people down out there. You are proposing a false dilemma. There is hardly anything in the way of violent racial turmoil going on that is anywhere near the scope and scale of the 1960s. If it is happening, its not on college campuses (I'm sure you'll ask for conclusive, statistical evidence of this). Safe spaces are purely used to shelter people form criticism and allow them to not be challenged. And lets face it, they imply a certain hostility toward people of my demographic, white, heterosexual males, who are usually viewed as the oppressors, the bigots, the "privileged". I'm the scum of the fucking earth, didn't you know? They'd probably kick me out of a safe space because I don't score high enough in the oppression olympics.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpvLfYMAr8 Sure, lets focus on the strict definition of something rather than the reality of how it is usually practiced. There is a safe space at my college, and my college could not be a safer, less imposing, less dangerous place to be for anyone. I've never been to a place with so many kids that is as naturally laid back, inclusive, and safe. These people are fucking delusional.

You're more closed-minded than me. I never said you had to agree with me, but you could at least acknowledge a point sometimes. I've done this for you people, and if you go back in this thread, you'll see where I've conceded points. You guys have yet to acknowledge that I've even made points. You know what, fine. Have your safe spaces and trigger warnings instead of the free exchange of ideas. Let postmodernism and feminism impede upon academia and the natural sciences so that an unfettered study of science is no longer possible. It'll be "sexist" to study biology or sex or gender. I think professor Gad Saad's labelling of you people as the "Castrati Brigade" fits so well.

You will never sell me on safe spaces. Not while I can still look down between my legs and see testicles hanging there. "Trigger warnings" for college assignments and study material also exist alongside safe spaces so as not to upset anyone with the content or subject matter. Its insane, and not even remotely supported by me. You know, everyone on this forum is impotent in my opinion. I have consistently provided lengthy (good) reasons for my positions and have yet to have a single person even remotely attempt to concede a point, or acknowledge that they at least understand where I'm coming from on a single thing, or acknowledge that I have presented reasons for my position, or say "I understand how you arrived at that position". I've had nothing but opposition, and insistence that I haven't defended my position, which I have. If people were trying to take oxygen away from universities, and I explained that you can't do that because humans would literally die from it, you guys would be sitting here saying, "well.....I'm not so sure about that, where's your evidence for this." I could sit there and explain how the brain cannot survive after six minutes without oxygen, and you'd be like "I still don't see that you've made a compelling argument for your case. Where's your evidence?" http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1&referrer=

At some point, your no longer being usefully skeptical, your just being impotent and numb to reality.

Still waiting on an argument.So I suppose the concensus of this forum/community is that we should allow people to avoid hearing ideas/information they don't like on public college campuses by letting them retreat to areas (on public grounds) where they don't have to hear it? I honestly cannot believe any thinking individual who cares about truth and conversation would support the idea of a safe space. But what do I know? I'm just the volatile idiot of the forum right? I'm the unlettered bone head who never has good arguments, and never presents evidence for his claims (even when he does present evidence). Skepticism and the scientific method work for investigating the natural world, but when applied to some issues, they become less about effective and careful examination of the evidence to find out what's true, and more about just downright dickless, pussy-footing, stubborn, obstinate unresponsiveness to blatant realities.

How the hell is this even a remotely good (or even decent) argument? They were in hostile situations wherein their lives were threatened? You think a safe space would have made that less a reality? These people may have been martyrs for their cause, but their standing up set a precedence for change to be followed by many. What precedence do safe spaces set other than dickless victim culture and no issues resolved? I didn't even remotely say, or even imply, that they are weak for not wanting physical harm or persecution done to them. I'm saying that sheltering them from criticism does them no good at all Good golly.

Who cares? Rosa Parks did not need a safe space. All she needed was the fortitude to tell white supremacists to fuck off and stand her ground when they tried to persecute her and others like her. Martin Luther King did not need a safe space (even in his day when African Americans were persecuted much worse than today). He used his free speech rights to rally in Washington, he put up his middle finger to the Birmingham baptists who wanted him to back down, and peacefully championed for social change. When you tell youths its okay to retreat to a safe space where no one can hurt their poor little feelings, you promote putting an end to the very thing that has consistently caused social change, and that's sticking up for your fucking self. It ends debate, wrongfully threatens free speech, and doesn't help prepare people to handle the challenges of the real world. How can social change happen for oppressed minorities when they give up and retreat to safe spaces? Colleges should be promoting the free exchange of ideas. College is where you go to have challenging new ideas introduced to you. College is not where you go to hear what you want to hear all of the time. Of course, there is nuance to these social issues. I don't support harassment or actions which go beyond it. But safe spaces only seem to promote more problems for minorities in my opinion.

The 19 9/11 hijackers were about as educated and exposed to western opportunities as it gets.

I was surprised by how much Trump was able to fake some of it.