Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A safe zone/space is by default censorship. It's an area where only one opinion may be voiced. THAT is censorship. It is banning opinions and voices.
If you want to attend a class/speech, then go. If you don't, then don't go. If you want to protest it, then protest. If you want to hear someone else, then arrange it.
I guess I still don't understand the concept. Does this mean a group of students who want to discuss Japanese anime exclusively can't form a club and meet in a room in the library to discuss Japanese exclusively, but have no choice but to admit American comics fanboys to discuss American comics?
I guess I still don't understand the concept. Does this mean a group of students who want to discuss Japanese anime exclusively can't form a club and meet in a room in the library to discuss Japanese exclusively, but have no choice but to admit American comics fanboys to discuss American comics?
No. A club is not the same thing as a "safe zone."
So are we talking about a "no-debate zone" or are we talking about a "no ad hominem" zone?
A safe zone is like that annoying intro at the movies: No TALKING PLEASE!
That's what it means. Politicians use them. Bush Jr used them. Corral all dissenters far away so they can't be heard. Now it's being taken a step further in that speakers aren't even being allowed to speak.
Safe zone means no other opinions. Period. And it is censorship.
As I've learned over the years, most people complaining about "political correctness" are angry that they can't call "those people" bigoted names anymore, and most people complaining about "safe zones" are mad that they can't be offensive, fight-picking thugs anymore. Every complaint I've ever heard about such things has inevitably come from angry people who just like to pick fights and make life hell for anyone who's different.
So, while a university is a place for open discourse and inquiry, that is very rarely what the opponents of political correctness and safe zones are actually seeking. Instead, they feel that they have some sort of right to bully others, and that is not protected by academic freedom. Heck, it's not even really protected by the first amendment; you can't be put in prison for being a verbal thug, but there are still consequences for spewing bigotry and being a thug.
You keep using the word bigot, but I don't think you actually know what it means.
A safe zone is like that annoying intro at the movies: No TALKING PLEASE!
That's what it means. Politicians use them. Bush Jr used them. Corral all dissenters far away so they can't be heard. Now it's being taken a step further in that speakers aren't even being allowed to speak.
Safe zone means no other opinions. Period. And it is censorship.
It is bigotry. I find it hilarious that liberals who support these safe spaces call people who they think are racist/homophobic/xenophobic/paternalistic/whatever "bigots" when "bigot" has an entirely different meaning... a meaning that actually describes the liberals supporting safe spaces to a tee.
But safe spaces, PC-ism, minority (meaning not color just not main stream) domination of campus life, etc. just doesn't reflect the real world in which those students will be expected to live and succeed.
If I believe the media, those kids couldn't walk through Times Square.
If it isn't an institution that promotes freedom of expression, then it's little more than an ideological indoctrination centre. Call it what it is: censorship.
If it's allowed under the First Amendment, then it's to be expected at an American university.
There is legitimate question as to what actually constitutes a "viewpoint." Hateful, abusive, and provocatively hurtful speech may fail some of the tests for being an actual "viewpoint."
There is a legitimate question as to what constitutes hateful, abusive, and provocative. So if one group finds things hurtful it should not be said? Isn't that how we go into this situation to begin with? Someone will always be offended. Depending on the subject many may be offended but that should not stop the discussion. Nothing should be off the table. If you don't want to see David Duke don't go, you don't get to cancel the appearance.
Last edited by thinkalot; 08-30-2016 at 06:00 PM..
There is a legitimate question as to what constitutes hateful, abusive, and provocative. So if one group finds things hurtful it should not be said? Isn't that how we go into this situation to begin with? Someone will always be offended. Depending on the subject many may be offended but that should not stop the discussion. Nothing should be off the table. If you don't want to see David Duke don't go, you don't get to cancel the appearance.
I just discovered there is a push to declare any ethnic identification of cuisine ("Greek food," "Chinese cooking" "French pastries" "Mexican food") as racist and offensive. Seriously. At least someone is serious about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I don't have time to read every post
