
“Safe Spaces” and the Mote in America's Eye - aptwebapps
http://popehat.com/2015/04/19/safe-spaces-and-the-mote-in-americas-eye/
======
tomlock
I'm not really sure how the author is making the link between post 9/11 safety
versus liberty issues and safe spaces.

It is really quite confusing because the people that exist in these spaces are
generally quite vehemently opposed to those same types of interventions. They
see themselves as existing in a system which has worked against them for
years, and they are suspicious of it. They see legislation as typically
working against them, and they are working to fight it.

Personally, I support the right for safe spaces to exist, and for people to be
angry when they are offended.

I am also personally opposed to safe spaces. I'm queer and they made me feel
like I wasn't the right type of queer. I view them as another reinforcement of
utterly meaningless hierarchies.

In this case though, the author's view of the people in those spaces seems to
be that they are linked with a movement that they generally reject. The author
doesn't have a very nuanced view of those people. I'd venture that they don't
know those spaces very well.

edit: Its also quite confusing since safe spaces have a history that starts
long before 9/11.

~~~
zerocrates
I think the complaint is not about safe spaces as something that people can
opt into if they prefer, but the idea that an _entire_ university should be
such a "safe space."

The bulk of the specific complaints are about things like free speech zones,
censorship, or banning, disinviting, or attacking speakers. These are all
basically methods to provide intellectual "safety" to everybody regardless of
whether they've asked for it, and I don't think they're really comparable with
more limited (what I would think of as "traditional") safe spaces.

Edit: The Judith Shulevitz New York Times opinion piece linked early on (which
made the rounds a few weeks ago) is clearly an inspiration of this post, and
Shulevitz does a much better job of actually engaging with the "normal"
definition of a safe space, its earlier history, and the expansion the article
decries.

"In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who
agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions —
subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough
to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all
parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint
seem like a perfectly fine idea.

But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of
controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some
spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they
should be made safer."

~~~
tomlock
I'm finding Judith's article much better written. Looking at the response the
students had to the "dangerous space" flier, seems to typify free speech. Why
shouldn't they ask the university to condemn the flier?

But the article is very slippery-slope, and mostly doesn't criticize safe
spaces directly, just what the author sees as their side effects.

~~~
zerocrates
I'd agree that both Shulevitz's piece and this one are flawed. They both offer
some interesting anecdotes but don't do a great job of criticism (or even, you
could argue, identifying what's being criticized).

Instead, both are to some extent willing to leave things at "look at the what
the wacky Millenials (substitute "leftists", "feminists", "statists" as
needed) are up to!"

Part of the problem, I suspect, is the messy intersection with politics and
identity in this area. It's tough to come across criticism that doesn't
devolve into political posturing, and even thoughtful discussion is easily
dismissed as it often comes from "the other side."

~~~
tomlock
I'd actively encourage everyone to listen to "the other side" regardless of
what side they are on. I see the popehat article as guilty of not doing that,
but similarly I think dismissing popehat entirely as a result of this article
is a mistake for "my side" because the same thing will happen when we
criticize it. We won't have understood the full picture, so we'll use the
wrong words and make mistakes. I feel like this is true in many domains.

------
IvanDenisovich
Don't know much about the rest of the US, but debates in my school are usually
won by whoever feels hurt and marginalized the most. The latest Israel-
Divestment debate revolved around what would be least offensive to
Jews/Israelis/Palestinians/Muslims, with Black and Latino students' feelings
thrown in for good measure. It was all about who self-victimizes the hardest,
objective reality in the middle east never came into play. Surprisingly
enough, most Muslim/Jewish/Black/Latino students went on peacefully with their
life, totally oblivious to how badly their feelings were hurt during that
debate. Thank god the school paper was there to tell them.

~~~
scarmig
Hmm. It doesn't seem to me that Israeli-Palestinian debates are one of the
ones centered around whose feelings are hurt the most. It's an emotional
discussion, to be sure, but one based around hard facts on the ground: anti-
Semitism/people calling for a second Holocaust, terrorism, mass expulsion,
expropriation, colonization, ethnic cleansing.

Hurt feeling debates are about nothing, typically, but Israel/Palestine is
very much about something.

~~~
IvanDenisovich
>It's an emotional discussion, to be sure, but one based around hard facts on
the ground: anti-Semitism/people calling for a second Holocaust, terrorism,
mass expulsion, expropriation, colonization, ethnic cleansing.

For sure, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is substantial and deals with
objective reality in the middle east that actually affects the lives of
millions of people. I'm just saying that the debate on my campus was never
about any _objective_ reality, and only revolved around the feelings of the
participants. The main claim was on both sides "if the school adopts decision
_, my feelings will be hurt really bad".

------
detcader
This is a rant, one of weaker ones for PopeHat. There is nothing on the
history or nature of the idea of "safe spaces" beyond a couple of anecdotes in
the form of links to previous PopeHat posts. There is zero mention of queer
politics and queer theory, despite those enterprises hosting the strongest
advocates for safe spaces. One might imagine this is because the writer is
ignorant of what is going on modern LGBT politics, or supports queer politics,
or realizes that his rant would be unpopular if he talked about ideas like the
extremely popular notion that certain kinds of speech is _literally_ violence
against trans people.

But really, the only purpose here, as is the case with most PopeHat rants, is
to attempt to appeal to everyone. The subtle calling-out of women, blacks, and
gays will please one type of person. The civil libertarianism will please
another type of person. It's a very transparent thing if you read more than
one PopeHat rant -- what they choose to focus on is what will maximize their
readership and back-patting. Anything else is minimized and ignored.

PopeHat is useful because the writers are sometimes passionate enough to
produce decent writing about individual cases of people's self-interest
overriding common sense and maybe endangering actual freedom. But many posts
on it are transparently sparked by dishonest opportunism. In this case, the
opportunity was fabricated out of nothing. (see tomlock's comment)

------
sologoub
Very passionate write up, but what in gods name does Russia have to do with
anything here?! No people in Moscow or other parts of Russia will not stop to
correct a strangers scarf. In fact, most Russians don't even like eye contact
with strangers. They don't smile in the same way Americans do because it's
often seen as fake. It it is a very different culture for sure.

Author is display exceptional level of bias throwing in culture he doesn't
understand or know about...

------
douche
The idea that women are a minority group on college campuses is laughable. How
can you be marginalized when you control public opinion and make up 55-75% of
students?

~~~
SwellJoe
You can be marginalized if you only make up a small percentage of the
executive and administrative staff. Students don't have significant power on
most university campuses...administrators and wealthy alumni tend to hold the
reigns. And, at some universities, the football team administrators hold a
stunning amount of power.

Just like in a city urban center that is predominantly black, but the police,
judges, city council and mayor are all predominantly white.

Number of people does not necessarily equal power.

~~~
douche
I'm going to invoke identity politics and say that this does not match my
lived experiences. All of the deans I ever dealt with at my Ivy League college
were women. And Buddy Teevens did not hold an amount of power that could stun
a fourth-string walk-on fullback into a concussion.

~~~
SwellJoe
I think it is reasonable to say that progress has been made and is being made,
but there is still an imbalance that is not representative of the population
at large, and probably does not accurately represent the number of qualified
women and people of color who could be in positions of power within
universities.

[https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-
Presidents-/13...](https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-
Presidents-/131138/)

There are probably _also_ interesting conversations to have about why men are
graduating college less than women, particularly black men, who attend college
at a rate much lower than any other demographic in the US, including black
women. It's tempting to make it "us against them" (no matter who the "us" is),
but, it's probably not useful except for the most powerful (who do tend to be
white and male, though not all white males fit into that category).

------
late2part
_We should have taught them not to give up essential liberty for a little
safety. Instead, we taught them that the government needs the power to send
flying robots to kill anyone on the face of the earth without review and
without telling us why._

Ken is a great writer and a great American. I'm grateful to him for pointing
out these problems with great style.

------
chipsy
It is as simple as agreeing to listen. The concept of safe space is reasonable
within the assumption that there is a dominant culture that is free-
speechified(variously politicized, highest bidder, protectionist, victimized).
Within the college spaces it tends to swing towards naive radicalism, engaging
in the dominant narrative as a "counter" force without questioning the
ideology that creates that context.

Or to put it another way - you stand a much better chance of experiencing safe
space within a group of trusted acquaintances who agree to the agenda, than in
a broad-based organization . The latter is there to employ you in a war.

------
SwellJoe
It's surprising, to me, that the author seems to equate the people who use the
term "safe spaces" as being on the other side of his calls for liberty. In my
personal experience, "safe space" is a term used by activists almost
exclusively...and those activists are almost universally, vocally, and
visibly, opposed to: Drones, mass surveillance, TSA, DHS, perpetual war, the
drug war, the war on terror, etc.

The people I know who use the term "safe space" are the same folks I
consistently see at rallies and marches and direct actions related to all of
those issues (and more, that you _never_ see the white "liberty" guys show up
for; women's reproductive health access particularly among poor women of
color, immigrant detainment issues, murder of people of color by police,
etc.).

The term "safe space" has a specific meaning, which has nothing to do with
free speech. It is a term used to define a space that people opt into, and
generally the use of force is not considered part of the process of achieving
a safe space. It isn't about whether you're free to say something. A safe
space is something one chooses to be part of; a specific community or
conversation, which, as a group, has decided to not be assholes to each other
based on race, or gender, or sexual preference, etc.

It's interesting that in a conversation alleging people are demanding they
never have their feelings hurt, a lot of white men are demanding they not have
their feelings hurt by anyone asserting that white men sometimes say/do
racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic stuff. The privilege tantrum is truly a
thing to behold. It never ceases to amaze me, no matter how many times I see
it...and I see it all the time.

~~~
grovulent
I do think it is important to give credit to the far left for their activism
on certain fronts. On this point I agree with you.

You define a safe space as something that people opt into. Do you really
believe that? Here's an example that doesn't look very opt-in to me:

[http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-
commissione...](http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissioner-
ray-kelly-shut-down-at-brown/)

Further - while some people are no doubt standing up for free speech to
protect their privilege, many are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do
with their own feelings - but because we are concerned about the possibility
that we might be wrong in our beliefs; the exact opposite of worrying about
our own feelings. I don't agree with NYPD actions in recent times. But I need
to be able to listen to what they have to say - JUST IN CASE I'm wrong in
those beliefs.

To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind. That many on
the left can't see this is a great modern, political tragedy. They would
achieve so much more if they did.

~~~
SwellJoe
_" You define a safe space as something that people opt into. Do you really
believe that? Here's an example that doesn't look very opt-in to me"_

I believe the police commissioner of NYPD has sufficient power and influence
to be heard in any number of venues (and, any time he holds a press
conference, the world shows that I'm right in this assertion). I believe it is
protecting privilege to insist he be heard when there are thousands of voices
in the neighborhoods he has pledged to protect who those in power have refused
to hear for _decades_. The time for the police commissioner to speak on issues
of police abuse might be over...it might be time to hear somebody else talk
about it, even if they have to be rude and yell to be heard.

 _" To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind."_

On that, we are agreed. So why do we hear predominantly from police and
representatives of police when police kill someone? I think our difference of
perspective comes from the idea that everyone has equal access to "free
speech" and so we should listen to everyone equally. But, that's not the
reality we live in. The police commissioner, the mayor, the attorney general,
etc. all have a vastly disproportionate amount of access to "free speech" that
people of color who are their victims do not have.

 _" That many on the left can't see this is a great modern, political
tragedy."_

I am not on the left, though I can see how it might appear that way in this
particular conversation.

 _" They would achieve so much more if they did."_

I believe they'd also achieve so much more if they had the resources of those
in power. But, they don't. So, they work with what they've got. And, sometimes
all they have is the ability to shut shit down (and then go to jail for it,
because that's how this system responds to criticism from those with the least
access who resort to direct action out of desperation).

~~~
grovulent
_I think our difference of perspective comes from the idea that everyone has
equal access to "free speech" and so we should listen to everyone equally.
But, that's not the reality we live in. The police commissioner, the mayor,
the attorney general, etc. all have a vastly disproportionate amount of access
to "free speech" that people of color who are their victims do not have._

Yeah - to be honest this response reads as though it was printed on the back
of a packet of intersectional brand cereal. If only it were police chiefs that
this cereal logic is responsible for attacking.

There are comedians who get publicly humiliated over misunderstandings:

[http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-presenter-humiliated-me-on-
stage-...](http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-presenter-humiliated-me-on-stage-says-
transge-1421596988)

Male developers that get fired for making dick jokes:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/techie-adria-richards-fired-
afte...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/techie-adria-richards-fired-after-
tweeting-about-mens-comments/)

...as though either of these transgressions were really worth the level of
sanction your cereal logic ultimately demands.

Yes, yes all privileged so you don't care about them - and you'll point out
that the blow back onto the naive social justice folks that tried to apply
this cereal logic is arguably worse. And I would agree. Except while I'll see
the cause of both their completely unnecessary suffering in that cereal logic
of yours, you'll blame the existing power structures for it.

You'll egg them on while writing outraged tweets in their defense - signalling
how much of a good person you are for being intersectional. Kotaku will get
another zillion page views for covering the controversy. And the two people at
the center of it - get publicly torn apart.

It might be time to challenge that response of yours.

~~~
SwellJoe
What are you even talking about? I've mentioned none of the things you're
talking about. I'm willing to go off on some tangents (obviously, since I
followed you down the police commissioner tangent), but this is getting
ridiculous. I'm not responsible, and I don't feel obligated to answer, for
every ill you perceive in the world.

Also, what brand of cereal are you buying that comes with "logic"? Your
comment is more confusing than anything, frankly.

 _" You'll egg them on while writing outraged tweets in their defense -
signalling how much of a good person you are for being intersectional."_

I don't think we know each other, and I don't believe you follow me on
twitter. I'm not interested in being some sort of straw man for your angry
tirade.

------
parfe
Very brave of Ken to call out women, black people, and the LGBT community.

Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those
groups are exposed to ideas they don't like _all the time_ , every day, via
every avenue of media.

A safe space is a moment of solace to discuss issues specific groups are
particularly affected by without being berated by the 18 year old generic
white male libertarian who seems so keen on letting the minority groups how
they should be behaving.

~~~
formulaT
I see things the other way around. The generic white males are constantly
berated and ridiculed in the mainstream media. People are constantly getting
in trouble or losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, e.g. Satya Nadella
for not knowing the "right" response to the issue of women not asking for
raises.

~~~
tomlock
I chuckled a little because you mention "generic white males" and then Satya
in the next sentence.

Satya's comments were poorly stated and he said as much. People spoke freely
about it, and he clarified. Free speech in action!

~~~
formulaT
You must be easily amused then. Satya Nadella was an example of people in
generally being required to speak in a politically correct way. Haven't you
heard of intersectionality? Nadella could still be accused of having male
privilege in spite of being non-White.

And your analysis is very shallow. Of course speech was "free" in the legal
sense, that is not the issue. The issue is that even though his honest opinion
was that in the long run, women's approach might not be a big disadvantage, he
was forced to recant and give the "right" answer.

~~~
tomlock
I _am_ easily amused and I also know what intersectionality is.

I'm interested in why you have the perspective that Satya was being honest and
then recanted, since he pretty clearly stated that he misspoke, and it is easy
to see how he misspoke. My perspective is he was speaking in terms of how tech
ought to be for women, but failed to mention that the situation for women was
currently different. The idea that women ought to be able to trust the system
is a given, but Satya didn't say "but it currently isn't so" and in his
apology he cleared that up. Good on him!

~~~
formulaT
_My perspective is he was speaking in terms of how tech ought to be for women,
but failed to mention that the situation for women was currently different._

That's just completely wrong, watch the video again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndm_RSvAgO4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndm_RSvAgO4)

~~~
tomlock
I disagree. Could you help me understand why you think he backed down rather
than just clarifying his comments?

~~~
formulaT
If you watch the video, there is nothing that suggests Satya is not talking
about the way things are in the workplace, not they way they should be. I just
don't see where you are getting this idea from. Do you have a single source
for this?

------
venomsnake
SJWs are annoying as hell. On the other hand they are self defeating movement
(except the fat acceptance part of them that does not move at all). If you
victimize yourself you will never make anything out of you ...

