ADVERTISEMENT

Safe Space Forum

nashvillegoldenflash

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2006
7,377
206
63
In keeping with the liberal zeitgeist, perhaps GoMiddle.com should offer a safe space forum where liberals can go to avoid seeing ideas or opinions that aren't in agreement with their own.

Maybe the Ohio University College Republicans are wrong mocking safe spaces and conservatives like BBJ and myself should be more sensitive to the needs of liberals.

13.png


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...owflakes-want-a-police-investigation-n2150356
 
So, having a safe place to go for teens when they are being physically, sexually, emotionally etc abused is a bad idea? No one said that they would go throughout their lives having a safe place to go to, but it sure as hell helps when you are younger and more vulnerable. What an idiotic thing to try and mock. Here, follow this link and educate yourselves: http://nationalsafeplace.org/ God you guys are the right are idiots. No doubt this was done by someone who has never dealt with this kind of adversity in their lives...what a bunch of spoiled brats.
 
I don't think the safe space and safe place are the same things. The safe place program you reference sounds like a great program.

The safe space Archie was referring to is the idea on college campuses that if a person may become offended by an idea they find hurtful, whatever is offensive must be removed. The argument is freedom of speech even if others may be offended by what is said or removal of offensive things, speech, etc. to create a safe space where no one can say anything offensive.

You see it a lot with Trump on campuses. A lot of groups have been offended by what Trump has said and feel they should not have to see trump political signs or chalk drawings on campus. Trump supporters say they have freedom of speech.
 
I don't think that having a place to get away is all that bad. I did it at my fraternity house when things got a little rough now and again. I think we all have a safe place we can go to, whether we realize it or not.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9f3a66-bb94-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html

By Morton Schapiro January 15
Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.

College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest, and most of the messages are unpleasant.

Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how to respond.

But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.

A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?

I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.

First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so on.

Opinions newsletter

Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.



And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasn’t one of them. The white students, while well-meaning, didn’t have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.

Now for the story from Northwestern. For more than four decades, we have had a building on campus called the Black House, a space specifically meant to be a center for black student life. This summer some well-intentioned staff members suggested that we place one of our multicultural offices there. The pushback from students, and especially alumni, was immediate and powerful. It wasn’t until I attended a listening session that I fully understood why. One black alumna from the 1980s said that she and her peers had fought to keep a house of their own on campus. While the black community should always have an important voice in multicultural activities on campus, she said, we should put that office elsewhere, leaving a small house with a proud history as a safe space exclusively for blacks.

A recent white graduate agreed. She argued that everyone needed a safe space and that for her, as a Jew, it had been the Hillel house. She knew that when she was there, she could relax and not worry about being interrogated by non-Jews about Israeli politics or other concerns. So why is the Black House an issue in the eyes of some alumni who write saying that we should integrate all of our students into a single community rather than isolate them into groups? I have never gotten a single note questioning the presence of Hillel, of our Catholic Center or any of the other safe spaces on campus.

See Link for the rest.
 
I agree that safe spaces should go away. Especially churches where they are always imposing on my rights to drop f-bombs at will without someone getting all butt hurt and offended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueRaiderFan
Liberals proudly pronounce their support for "freedom of expression," but seek to suppress and impugn opinions they don't agree with? These people are warped, perverted, and morally depraved individuals. How sad....


Having a place to go to is not impeding another persons right to free speech. They can still speak all they want throughout the rest of the country. Having one room or building where you can't keep berating someone is not limiting your freedom of speech. Saying it is, is asinine.
 
Having a place to go to is not impeding another persons right to free speech. They can still speak all they want throughout the rest of the country. Having one room or building where you can't keep berating someone is not limiting your freedom of speech. Saying it is, is asinine.

No one is arguing against a safe room or building for groups to escape ridicule. There are now movements to make the entire university a safe space because a given group may be offended. A really good article about it was in the NY Times here.

The ACLU says that the safe space movement on campuses has went too far (who knew Flash was an ACLU guy):

From the ACLU website here:

"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."


So while you are correct, there is nothing wrong with having a room or building to escape to, the concept of the safe space has morphed into something beyond that. There have been infringements on First Amendment rights on college campuses under the guise of creating a no offense safe zone.
 
So many of these movements have lost their minds. It used to be everyone wanted tolerance, then they wanted acceptance and then using the law to force acceptance. Now we have move beyond acceptance to where certain speech isn't free anymore - example of private businesses or churches. Its sad what has happened on many college campuses. I don't have a problem with a "safe" place, just not the entire campus.
 
Did the Nazis have the right to use "free speech" to say the things they did about the Jews? No, they didn't. What you guys fail to understand is that your rights only stand in as much as they don't trample on my constitutional rights. In other words: You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to threaten to limit my life, liberty etc because you want to espouse hate speech. If you want to disparage a different race, go to a Klan rally. Don't try it on a campus. That's what the left is saying.
 
No that is not what the left is saying. How is a pro Trump sign in a fraternity front yard threatening your life? You must be drunk.
 
C'mon man. The Nazi went a bit beyond speech with the whole holocaust thing. That's the kind of comparison I would expect from Flash or John.

So, yes or no question, the ACLU is wrong?

I'm going to use a quote from the movie American President....

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

And the French get it as well, not just the 1st amendment, in their declaration of the rights of Man and Citizen. "The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely...."

We must protect freedom of speech in public, even if it means protecting the speech of those who say vile, disgusting things. Freedom of speech - a fundamental principle of this country.
 
You guys are obviously keying in on one or two incidents, instead of the big picture. We can go incident by incident or we can just generally say, some things you do not have the right to harass someone about. They have the right to get away from it and you. Again, just broad general terms here. I'm not saying that I agree with EVERYTHING that has happened concerning this, so far.
 
You guys are obviously keying in on one or two incidents, instead of the big picture. We can go incident by incident or we can just generally say, some things you do not have the right to harass someone about. They have the right to get away from it and you. Again, just broad general terms here. I'm not saying that I agree with EVERYTHING that has happened concerning this, so far.


I just realized something - you are so used to dealing with Archie Bunker and Joe McCarthy on this forum, that discussions and/or debates get skewed. Remember, when you group us as "you guys," not all of us are out on the extreme fringe with Archie, Joe, Westboro, and the like.


On topic, I think we may almost be at the same point for different directions. I agree 100% that people should be able to have a safe room / building / spot on a campus that is safe from harrassment. I just think the Safe Space movement has over stretched and has started infringing on 1st amendment rights. I think we should protect those, even if it protects some offensive, awful speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MidTnBlues
Maybe. I have yet to hear specifics from anyone on where they have overstepped. Also, I think people should be able to speak their minds, but not when it comes to inciting riots or violence against others. As a matter of fact, we already have laws on the books against it and they are constitutional.
 
Maybe. I have yet to hear specifics from anyone on where they have overstepped. Also, I think people should be able to speak their minds, but not when it comes to inciting riots or violence against others. As a matter of fact, we already have laws on the books against it and they are constitutional.

Again, no one is saying its ok to incite violence. Here are 3 examples, where no one called for violence, but the expression of unpopular views created did go with the expanded safe space ideology.

1. Specific example here. College has a program called, "Uncomfortable Learning" where they bring in speakers that say controversial ideas. A speaker was going to give a talk for the group (not going to a dorm or preaching on the quad). The protests were so threatening, her talk was cancelled.

The school newspaper published this, :While free speech is important and there are problems with deeming speech unacceptable, students must not be unduly exposed to harmful stereotypes in order to live and learn here without suffering emotional injury. It is possible that some speech is too harmful to invite to campus. The College should be a safe space for students, a place where people respect others’ identities."

A later editorial, after the talk was cancelled said, “Although it was not our intent, I understand and accept that our editorial, as written, does advocate for limited free speech, and that was a mistake.

Just don't go to the talk. Or go, question, debate. Or go protest outside the event.



2. There is an example of students calling for the removal of a "Trump 2016" chalk marking as making campus unsafe.



3. Yale students called (and lead to faculty resignation) based on the below story:

Such a heated debate played out on the campus of Yale University last week -- one over culturally sensitive Halloween costumes that was recorded in a video that has since gone viral.

On Oct. 30, Erika Christakis, Yale faculty member and associate "master" of Silliman College -- a residential community within the university -- sent an e-mail to students in which she questioned an earlier missive by the university that urged students to "take the time to consider their [Halloween] costumes and the impact it may have" -- including feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing "war paint" or changing the color of one's skin tone.

"Dear Sillimanders," Christakis' e-mail began. "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do."

"But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students," Christaki said.

Referring to her husband, Silliman College "master" and Yale professor, Christakis added, "Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."

Christakis' e-mail spurred outrage among a large group of students at Yale, who staged a massive protest -- called the "March of Resiliency" -- during which they called for inclusiveness on the college campus. Students of color also confronted Nicholas Christakis -- in a video that has since been shared thousands of times on the Internet -- and accused him of not wanting to create a "safe space" for all students. Several of the students called for Christakis and his wife to resign from their posts at the university.

Samantha Harris, attorney and directory of police research for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE], described Erika Christakis' note to students as a "thoughtfully-worded e-mail" that invited open, intellectual dialogue..."
 
You didn't give enough specifics for me to say, but it seems as at least two of these have racial issues involved with them and no, I do not agree that racial hate speech should be allowed on campus under the guise of "just don't go see it." It doesn't belong on campus. This is a learning environment. Young adults shouldn't feel threatened where they are learning and hate speech that incites violence shouldn't be allowed anywhere.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

In this case, I stand with the ACLU (which is the only time in my life I will say that). As long as someone is not making a specific threat of violence, their speech should be protected, even if their speech is offensive or has racial, misogynist, religous (pro or against), etc. undertones.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

In this case, I stand with the ACLU (which is the only time in my life I will say that). As long as someone is not making a specific threat of violence, their speech should be protected, even if their speech is offensive or has racial, misogynist, religous (pro or against), etc. undertones.

Me too, only time I agree with ACLU. There is a large movement on the left that wants to shut down differing opinions. Its just sad what is happening on college campuses these days. I feel like I live in the twilight zone.
 
I don't think it's a movement to shut down differing opinions. I think it's a movement to shut down racist and inflammatory speech.
 
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. I think it's fairly obvious what it is. Any reasonable person would admit that they know what it is.
 
We must always remember that one man’s hate speech is another man’s real, genuine, heartfelt moral or religious belief. What the state or mainstream society or student leaders refer to as ‘hate speech’ is to someone else an acceptable and even good way of thinking. We are rebranding ideas — whether it’s racist ideas or religious ideas or traditionalist ideas — as hate speech. It is cynical and censorious, and in my view as equally as outrageous as rebranding criticism of the government a ‘thoughtcrime’.

This line of thinking was created and pushed by the Soviets after WW2.

Its not measurable, Powers to police not only what we say and think, but what we feel. WTF are we doing?
 
Bulls#it, if you are using racist language, and we all know what that is, you aren't having "real, genuine, heartfelt moral or religious" experience. You are spreading hate. Come on, Mike. You are spinning. You know what racism is. You know what bigotry is.
 
What a complete line of bull, Lynn. Liberals don't tolerate hate from any group toward any other group. Get real.
 
ADVERTISEMENT