We Need "Not Safe" Spaces on College Campuses

[SnakeOilByShore]

In the past, I've thought safe spaces were a ridiculous idea. Recently I've come around to the idea. Why not have a spot you can go on campus for a bit that is peaceful and quiet and you don't have to discuss politics or debate?For certain groups of people college life can be especially overwhelming or exhausting. Having a "safe" community can help them cope with college life.

The problem is not safe spaces themselves, the problem is the echo chambers they create. When a student cannot tolerate the idea of somebody with an opposing viewpoint (conservative) being present in the general vicinity because of such extreme fear of what it might lead people to do-that's an issue.

They might be right, but that doesn't mean they should live their lives in a bubble- once they get off campus, that bubble is going to be pushed, prodded, and popped. And then what?

If somebody has a fear of germs, they do exposures which involve exposing themselves to germs. They may get sick. In fact, the likelihood of them getting sick increases. If they stop taking a hundred precautions, the lifetime likelihood increases dramatically. But that's worth it when the alternative is to shut yourself inside of the house and constantly check food safety websites for recall information.

In the interim, though, they have cool down periods. Over time they become more and more comfortable with the idea and eventually, realizing a life without fear is what they truly want, accept reality.

You can probably tell what I'm getting at. If college campuses provide "safe spaces" for students they also need to implement "not safe spaces." Spaces where different ideas clash. Where people come together to discuss and argue. It is of vital importance that every human being learns these skills. If you are unable to tolerate opposing viewpoints, that isn't something you SHOULD fix, that's something you Need to fix.

Let me map out how this idea could potentially be put into effect.

1.) Some area on the college campus is set aside and marked off. A "not safe" space.

2.) Students fill out a general opinion poll. They are not told in advance that this poll will determine who they debate with.

3.) Somebody with opposing viewpoints is chosen as their "debate partner"

4.) The paper contains basic information, including likes and Dislikes (non offensive, neutral) in order to humanize the other person.

5.) the two people meet up at a certain time. As part of the college cirriculum this would be mandatory. Alternatives, such as listening to conservative speakers, could be offered.

6.) the two individuals discuss and debate points of view. Anything that falls under the first amendment umbrella is permitted. Yes, that includes hate speech. Physical violence and threats are not permitted.

7.) Once the two students go their separate ways, campus rules go back into effect.

8.) These conversations must take place at least once a week. If your debate partner is an actual Sociopath, you can opt for a different one.

Graduation would hinge on participation in "life prep" programs, including debate.

Could students' feelings get hurt? They probably will. You don't treat any other anxiety by avoiding hurting people's feelings.

Could depression or SI increase? It is possible, though for people with depression a pass could be granted. All I can say to this is that, as somebody in treatment for anxiety, these are potential side effects.

The hope is that policies such as this one would produce a stronger, braver, more intelligent, and capable graduate.

Alternatives could include attending an event with a conservative speaker and asking them a question.

At first, the two students would participate in icebreakers and chit chat. As time went on, if they so choose, they could continue conversing about other topics. They do not have to talk about politics-merely talking to a person who you know has a completely different beliefs may be exposure enough for some.

Safe spaces would be in full effect still. "Not safe" spaces/debate would allow students to expose themselves to other points of view in a controlled environment. Moderators would stand by to ensure nothing gets too out of hand. And, every month or so, two people could choose to debate a topic in front of their peers.

Something needs to change. This is the solution I propose.

Thoughts? Rebuttals? Insults?

All responses welcomed!

[Benedek38]

1) You are not looking for a non-safe space, you want an area for political discourse. Nothing wrong with that.

2) I was with you until this:
"As part of the college cirriculum this would be mandatory. Alternatives, such as listening to conservative speakers, could be offered."
This is just ridiculous. I like engaging in discussions, but you know what would make me hate it? If I was forced to do it.
You can advertise this debating club or whatever, you can make it worth it to participate by giving everyone a snackbar or something - but negative feedback for failure of compliance has never worked, and never will.

3) "These conversations must take place at least once a week. If your debate partner is an actual Sociopath, you can opt for a different one."
Again with the sanctioning. MUST take place! What do you think, how long before somebody (rightfully) organises a protest against this?

If you said that students studying political science, sociology or something concerned with politics have to learn about opposing viewpoints as part of the curriculum, that's fine. But forcing them to engage with random strangers will NEVER work. I guarantee it.

by the way how would you decide if someone's a sociopath? The same way the left decides who is a nazi? Pointing fingers?

4) "Graduation would hinge on participation in "life prep" programs, including debate."
Graduation should only depend on your ability to do your job. I don't think as a future engineer people skills and a diverse political opinion is vital to my job. Remember - higher education is not mandatory. You are not teaching children about life. Talking down to them like toddlers and forcing a pill down their throats will get you nowhere.

5) "You don't treat any other anxiety by avoiding hurting people's feelings."
Except people who wish to cure their anxiety do it voluntarily.
I have arachnophobia. I am slowly trying to combat it. If someone threw a tarantula on me while walking on the street, and said "It's for your own good", I'd probably knock out all of his/her teeth.

6) "The hope is that policies such as this one would produce a stronger, braver, more intelligent, and capable graduate."
You know what ELSE does that? Corporal punishment. Makes people more cunning, more focused, more durable - but it has a few psychological side effects.
IT'S OUTLAWED FOR A REASON! BECAUSE IT CAUSES MORE HARM THAN GOOD!

[SnakeOilByShore]

1) areas for political discourse don't promote Any speech like a non safe space would

2) The students who most need it wouldn't participate, only the students who least need it. I thought through the issues with making it mandatory, but I do not see an alternative. I'm not sure I would say it's never worked

3) If the person is threatening, harassing, etc. Doesn't matter if they meet the diagnostic criteria, if they in some way pose a threat to a student's safety on campus, they should be dealt with. People with Sociopathic tendencies I suppose.

I already addressed this in point 2

4) College is supposed to prepare students for the real world, not merely instill the knowledge necessary so the student can complete a task. Colleges should aim to equip students with life skills, esp. As high schools are doing that less and less.

5) That's not entirely true. I have a fear of vomiting. I was forced to get a feeding tube at one point. Would've died w/o it.

[SnakeOilByShore]

5) cont. But obviously that isn't the same as being offended since being offended doesn't pose a direct threat to a person's life. To address your scenario, if somebody did that every day for a month you would start getting used to it. And flooding is sometimes used to treat anxiety.

Good on you though, I'm still fighting my anxiety and it sucks. Wish you luck.

Yeah, but corporal punishment has different side effects. That's like me suggesting people take medicine for a cold because the pros outweigh the cons, side effects, and people responding by saying chemotherapy has side effects and is bad. Yes, both have side effects, but that's a very broad term. Obviously I'm not talking about bruises and physical injury.

If schools are going to have mandated safe spaces or echo chambers, Schools need to implement something to get people out of their echo chamber. But, as echo chambers are low stress and comfortable, they won't do that w/o sufficient motivation

[Benedek38]

1) "areas for political discourse don't promote Any speech"
What? That ENTIRELY depends on what kind of discourse it is.

2) "The students who most need it wouldn't participate, only the students who least need it."
So the solution is to force it onto them? Then you are no better than them.
"I thought through the issues with making it mandatory, but I do not see an alternative."
The alternative is to live and let live. Liberty. Freedom of choice. As I said - you have to incentivise it. And you don't have to enroll the radical 1% - you have to enroll the remaining 99%. The power is with the majority. If your efforts pay off, and they like discourse, then you already succeeded. The 1% doesn't matter.
"I'm not sure I would say it's never worked"
Oh, sure it worked just fine! In every dictatorship ever. But it "working", to me, means the people enjoy it. If you want to stuff the red pill down their throats, they will just cough it up.

[Benedek38]

3) "People with Sociopathic tendencies I suppose."
So you are willing to prosecute someone over a diagnosis? That sounds extremely authoritarian. And how do you KNOW he/she is a sociopath? I can say THAT person over there is one. Unless a psychologist diagnoses him/her, my words only amount to slander in this case.

5) "Would've died w/o it."
Do you think liberals would die without conflicting values?
Here's the thing: medical practitioners DON'T NEED consent to save your life. This is ensured in most countries by LAW. It's a basic principle of favouring human life over comfort.
THis is a whole other level of issues leading back to euthanasia and all that jazz, and I don't want to get back into it. But let me ask you: If someone approached you int he middle of the night, injected you with something that renders you immobile temporarily, and stuffed a tube down your throat so you vomited JUST for the sake of making you vomit- would you feel thankful? I doubt it.

[Benedek38]

5) cont.
Sorry, didn't see that you continued.

And yes, I'd probably get used to it. I'd also grow a habbit of wearing human teeth necklace and carrying a baseball bat. And I wouldn't be a BIT sympathetic to spiders, or people who do this to me.
Let me give YOU an extreme scenario: your girlfriend is religious. She doesn't want to have sex before marriage. But you KNOW she'd enjoy it, as she's expressed such a desire. Are you right to bend her over and rape her?

6) "chemotherapy has side effects and is bad."
Once again. The alternative is DEATH. And guess what? Chemo ain't mandatory. You are hanging yourself with your own rope.

"Obviously I'm not talking about bruises and physical injury."
Neither was I. Psychological damage. Ever heard of it? Or are you one of those "psychology is not a hard science, therefore I can disregard it" guys?

[Benedek38]

"If schools are going to have mandated safe spaces or echo chambers, Schools need to implement something to get people out of their echo chamber."

Here's a crazy solution:
1) None of your business. Universities are private institutions with a code of conduct. YOU need snowflakes to be forced out of their comfort zone. THEY, or the UNIVERSITY, doesn't NEED it.
2) How about this: Not letting said free spaces interlap with regular places? A classroom shouldn't be a "safe space".
Give the snowflakes a room where they can be safe (and let every ideology in, because THAT is the definition of safe space), and that's it. 10000+ people can't stay in a single room at the same time.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I botched the first point. I didn't mean politicaĺ discourse doesn't allow any speech as in no speech is allowed, I meant political discourse generally restricts speech to some degree. In professional debates, throwing out racist slurs isn't tolerated. In a not safe space, a person behaving that way will not be punished though their partner can opt for a partner change. If nobody will partner with them, special exceptions are made concerning graduation requirements.

Short term discomfort for long term benefit. Their intention is to silence the opposition by force, my intention is to foster a dialoguė by employing harsh consequences. As I said though, alternative options would be offered and cases of SA and depression would be reviewed individually and exceptions would be made.

When did I ever talk about prosecution?

I addressed the point about death and the issues with the comparison in a previous comment. And this wouldn't be for no reason.

[Benedek38]

"Their intention is to silence the opposition by force, my intention is to foster a dialoguė by employing harsh consequences."
Your intention is to silence THEIR opposition by force.

2) "alternative options would be offered" So you are not forcing them to do one uncomfortable thing, but to choose between two uncomfortable things. Still sounds authoritarian

3) ."When did I ever talk about prosecution? "
I don't know where *I* talked about prosecution (it would be useful if you could use quotes), but generally any kind of mandatory rule implies prosecution upon non-compliance, otherwise people won't all do it voluntarily.

4) "I addressed the point about death and the issues with the comparison in a previous comment. And this wouldn't be for no reason. "
By "addressing", I assume you meant that you mentioned it's a shitty analogy, but somehow it still works, because you decided so.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Even if you weren't sympathetic, you would benefit because your arachnophobia would decrease. Most people get along fine without having sympathy for spiders. You would be able to handle yourself like most people, save for the bat and teeth necklace.

No, because she wouldn't enjoy rape she would enjoy consensual sex. And rape is illegal. What is this hypothetical a response to?

My point was that you were comparing two things which both carried potential side effects. Aside from that, what I proposed and corporal punishment have nothing in common. And the side effects are different, so it's an odd comparison.

As somebody who has been treated for OCD, depression, and anxiety you can rest assured I believe in psychology and psychological damage. I also believe not being adequately prepared for the outside world could cause this sort of damage.

If 99% of people were willing to. Big if.

As I said, they don't even have to discuss politics. They have to have a discussion with somebody

[SnakeOilByShore]

Who holds different views.

I'm talking about public universities

It's not just me, even the liberal party is coming around to this idea.

[Benedek38]

"No, because she wouldn't enjoy rape she would enjoy consensual sex."
And I would enjoy to cope with my phobia on my own, and not by a jerk throwing spiders at me.
Don't you see how much of a hypocrite you are?

"And rape is illegal."
So is throwing spiders at people. It is considered assault.

"My point was that you were comparing two things which both carried potential side effects."
FFS, quotes. Please. I shouldn't have to read back (and I won't to make sense of your arguments.

"Aside from that, what I proposed and corporal punishment have nothing in common."
Yes it does. Negative feedback. One of the basic concepts of work morale is that you very rarely use negative feedback, and only if there is no other option. And even then it does more harm than good. There are obvious solutions here that use positive feedback that you refuse to see.

[Benedek38]

"And the side effects are different"
Corporal punishment usually doesn't leave physical damage, as it focuses on pain, and not wounding. The most basic consequence of corporal pubishment is mental scarring.
Same as with rape.
Same as with any other example where you force people, and break their will.
What you proposed is forcing people to break. to the system. "You want to learn? You have to join by deliberately offensive debating club, or you have to watch offensive documentaries. You don't want to? Too bad, you can work at McDonalds!"

"As somebody who has been treated for OCD, depression, and anxiety you can rest assured I believe in psychology and psychological damage."
Then you are an even bigger hypocrite.

"I also believe not being adequately prepared for the outside world could cause this sort of damage."

Again:
*I will rape you now so that it won't come as a surprise later on!*
What a mature approach!

[Benedek38]

"If 99% of people were willing to. Big if. "
90. 80. 70. 60. 50. Hell, even 10. Still better than forcing people to involuntarily do it.

I was always under the impression that Americna conservatives believe in freedom of choice. You preach the exact opposite.

"As I said, they don't even have to discuss politics. They have to have a discussion with somebody"
Agian. Have. Need. Forcing people to do shit always blows up. in someone's face.

[Benedek38]

"Who holds different views."
Citation. I have no idea what you are saying, again.

"I'm talking about public universities"
Still privately operated , and the code of conduct is decised by the staff.

"It's not just me, even the liberal party is coming around to this idea."
You mean the liberals who. everyone accuses of. being illiberal and authoritatian? I wouldn't long for their approval.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Not force. Consequences. Colleges already use consequences as a means of making students take certain courses. Depending on the major, those courses are not always pertinent to the chosen major. Sometimes they are. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is not always pertinent. Sometimes it is. Colleges mandate certain courses to enrich students' global understanding. Exposure to different points of view does that as well. Students can get different perspectives, develop new conversational abilities, and learn a thing or two they didn't previously know. Although I would argue debate is even more important.

[SnakeOilByShore]

"As I said, they don't even have to discuss politics. They have to have a discussion with somebody"
Agian. Have. Need. Forcing people to do shit always blows up. in someone's face.

As I mentioned, colleges already use what you would consider "force" to make students learn. Somebody majoring in education who plans on teaching history does not benefit from taking an advanced math class. In their personal life, that information is largely useless. Should they be forced to work at McDonald's because they didn't learn math? I don't think so. But, as long as that is the case, I see no reason debate should not be a course.

Colleges have been vandalized because of students' inability to tolerate opposing viewpoints. Students have been beaten up,. So, Yes, colleges need this.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Still privately operated , and the code of conduct is decised by the staff.

My proposal is that the staff should set this up. I'm not talking about creating a federal law that forces colleges to adopt this.

[SnakeOilByShore]

And the side effects are different"
Corporal punishment usually doesn't leave physical damage, as it focuses on pain, and not wounding. The most basic consequence of corporal pubishment is mental scarring.
Same as with rape.
Same as with any other example where you force people, and break their will.

Comparing a mandatory debate class that has less restrictions than regular debate class to rape and corporal punishment is extreme. I know you purposely picked extreme examples, but the ones you suggested are so extreme that they really aren't comparable in any way. I don't understand what is so bad about making a class where people discuss opposing viewpoints, staying within the first amendment, part of a student's course requirements. Yes, like any other course requirement, students cannot graduate until they complete it.

[SnakeOilByShore]

And actually, going back to something I said earlier, in all areas of life you will encounter people w opposing viewpoints that make you uncomfortable. Colleagues, fellow employees, the list goes on and on. You can't say "this person is pro-gun, can you fire them

[SnakeOilByShore]

The authoritarian liberals want to ban free speech.

You wrote other stuff, but I think my responses addressed the crux of the issue

[SnakeOilByShore]

Actually, I am going to adjust my stance a bit. Mandatory courses are important to enhance students' understanding and I do not have issues with colleges requiring them.

[Benedek38]

I was just about to reply to your comments, but seems like you made up your mind about being a fascist.

[SnakeOilByShore]

If that makes me a fascist, so be it

[Benedek38]

Well, enforcing political ideologies on people DOES make you a fascist. So yeah.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm not enforcing a particular political ideology, I'm enforcing discussions about all political ideologies. And, again, I'm not suggesting a federal law be implemented, I'm suggesting colleges make this part of the required curriculum.

Calling me a fascist is an easy out. I responded to your points, I would appreciate a response from you as well.

[Benedek38]

"I'm not enforcing a particular political ideology"
No, you are forcing people to engage with said political ideology in an attempt to better understand and maybe embrace it. Which is - enforcing a political ideology!
The fact that you didn't say you'd send people to the Gulag if they weren't complying means nothing - force is force. Persecution is persecution.

"I'm not suggesting a federal law be implemented, I'm suggesting colleges make this part of the required curriculum."
I repeat myself once again. If it is not an intergral part of the curriculum, if it is not required for the profession the student is learning, then it has no place. It doesn't matter who is enforcing it, a federal law, or a modification in the curriculum. What matters is you place your own political goals above the significance of education itself.

[Benedek38]

"Calling me a fascist is an easy out."
It wasn't easy, that's why I tried to explain to you why your approach is dangerous. You decided to double down. YOU chose to be a fascist. If you don't like the word, too fucking bad. But the fact is that you are advocating for oppresion of ideas by forcing people to engage. Because believe it or not, NOT engaging in a political discourse IS an ideology, too.

"I responded to your points, I would appreciate a response from you as well."
I told you everything I had. I am tired of arguing with a person who can't seem to grasp the idea of a slippery slope.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm advocating for oppression of ideas by arguing people should be forced to have dialogues about different ideas? I do not follow that logic.

Not engaging in political discourse is a choice, not an ideology. You can go to college, choose not to participate if the college has a debate area set up, and not graduate. You can go to college, choose to skip math class, and not graduate. Choices. It's up to the administration whether or not they want to implement it to begin with.

Atheism is an ideology. Independence is as well. Not having any opinion whatsoever on religion or politics is not.

Also, as I mentioned before- people do not have to talk about politics they just have to have a discussion with somebody who holds opposing viewpoints. As they will in many, many areas of life.

Also, the people calling for suppression of free speech, those who need it the most, don't have a problem voicing their own political views... they just have a problem with other people doing it

[SnakeOilByShore]

Or not wanting to engage in political discourse, rather. Have to be careful with the exact language I use. You never said these people didn't have opinions.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I have no issue with the word fascist, but name calling to shut down conversation isn't a tactic I respect either. Call me whatever names you want to in your response (as you've been doing.) Don't make the actual name calling your response.

[Benedek38]

"name calling to shut down conversation isn't a tactic I respect either."
I am not name calling to shut dow the conversation. I am shutting down the conversation because I think you are beyond reason.

I am only telling you that what you are saying constitutes to being a fascist.

"people should be forced to have dialogues"
Forcing citizens to do ANYTHING is fundamentally authoritarian. Not necessarily oppressive, but...

"You can go to college, choose not to participate if the college has a debate area set up, and not graduate."
Clearly then higher education is tied to your requirements. Which means that you are forcing people to learn something they don't want to learn, and didn't pay tuition for. You are wasting everyone's time and money - I guarantee you, if you force something, people WILL half-ass it. Productivity and the individual liberty BOTH suffer.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 Students pay to learn and gain experience and knowledge. This program would help them to accrue useful knowledge and enrich their lives through experience. They are better off for it. Unless you can think of a situation where being able to converse with somebody who may hold different views is not important. I can't.

Even if they can just stand to be in the vicinity, that's something.

I shouldn't have used the word force. I explained how what I'm advocating is not force. And I even suggested some reasonable alternatives. If a student is unable to complete any aspect of the course, they likely will struggle after college.

I always try to stay calm and collected, even when the other person is escalating. You've been yelling this entire time. Then you call me a fascist. That's all well and good, but to say you haven't insulted me-that just isn't true. Objectively speaking.

I think, all in all, my answers have been reasonable. I would happily continue the conversation.

[Benedek38]

"You can go to college, choose to skip math class, and not graduate."
Sure. But if you are forcing sociology students to learn calculus II - something they won't use - then the system is dysfunctional. Similarly forcing a student who is learning medicine, science, engineering, economy, etc... to mandatorily engage in political discourse, then your system is disfunctional.

To implement the system you are advocating for, you first have to prove it is effective. Nothing suggests this, and right now the drawbacks seem to outweigh the benefits.

"Atheism is an ideology. Independence is as well. Not having any opinion whatsoever on religion or politics is not."

Actually, yes, atheism DOES mean "not having an opinion on religion". Atheism is the default state of the human mind - as a child you aren't born with any religion, you are nurtured into it. As such, atheism IS defined as "a lack of belief" in other words "NOT having an opinion". Something suggests me you aren't an atheist.

[Benedek38]

Of course there is nothing wrong with not being an atheist, but you clealy don't understand the fundamental concept of it.

And as for not having an opinion on politics - LAST TIME I CHECKED the US election WASN'T mandatory! And it shouldn't be. People should be allowed to express their disinterest in politics.

Thanks for essentially making this point for me. You are making debating really easy.

"people do not have to talk about politics they just have to have a discussion"
That's the same thing.

"the people calling for suppression of free speech, those who need it the most, don't have a problem voicing their own political views... they just have a problem with other people doing it."
And the solution is to bach their heads in with your ideology about free speech, right?
Here's the thing - many people don't like free speech. FORCING them won't change that. Some people do 180s, but trying to turn them around by force will result in alienating them.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 But if you are forcing sociology students to learn calculus II - something they won't use - then the system is dysfunctional.

Not if that student discovers they are actually interested in math or science. Students change majors all the time.

Similarly forcing a student who is learning medicine, science, engineering, economy, etc... to mandatorily engage in political discourse, then your system is disfunctional.

They don't have to engage in political discourse, they have to engage in discourse with people who share different points of view. As I originally stated

"At first, the two students would participate in icebreakers and chit chat. As time went on, if they so choose, they could continue conversing about other topics. They do not have to talk about politics-merely talking to a person who you know has a completely different beliefs may be exposure enough for some."

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 I am not an atheist, but I know what atheism is

Actually, yes, atheism DOES mean "not having an opinion on religion". Atheism is the default state of the human mind - as a child you aren't born with any religion, you are nurtured into it. As such, atheism IS defined as "a lack of belief" in other words "NOT having an opinion". Something suggests me you aren't an atheist.

Atheism is defined, as I understand it, by believing there is no God. I'm agnostic, defined as-its impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Those are ideologies, based around a set of beliefs. "I have no opinion on religious topics" is not what I would consider a "belief." that's not an ideology. And, I would argue, not even a belief. "People shouldn't engage in political discourse" is a belief. "I don't want to engage in political discourse" is not a belief. It's a statement made true by action. Beliefs are, by in large, opinions. And Ideologies are built on beliefs.

I'm not forcing anybody 2vot

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38

"the people calling for suppression of free speech, those who need it the most, don't have a problem voicing their own political views... they just have a problem with other people doing it."
And the solution is to bach their heads in with your ideology about free speech, right?
Here's the thing - many people don't like free speech. FORCING them won't change that. Some people do 180s, but trying to turn them around by force will result in alienating them.

Not liking it is one thing. Refusing to respect the first amendment is another. A) I'm not advocating force B) im advocating discourse with somebody with opposing views, not undying love of the first amendment.

[Benedek38]

"Refusing to respect the first amendment is another."
You have the first amendment right to speak your mind about things you like on free channels.
But the first amendment doesn't give you the right to be LISTENED TO, because thats an infringement on people's freedom of self-determination.

"I'm not advocating force"
Using force is a stupid term. Just because you aren't shooting someone in the back of the head, or putting them in jail doesn't mean you aren't forcing them. You are forcing them to choose between education and refusing your ideological program.

"They don't have to engage in political discourse, they have to engage in discourse with people who share different points of view."
The difference is sematics. Politics, social views, religious views, etc - at the ebd of the day, you are forcing them.
I am done with you.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 anything in the first amendment is permitted in the space. If one person wants to jam their fingers in their ears, that's on them. They are still benefitting by tolerating the discomfort being around somebody with different views causes.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Calculus, a far less important course for most people, is also tied to graduating. Why not have important courses required as well.

[Benedek38]

"Calculus, a far less important subject [...]"
said the intellectual midget.
Do you realise that ANYTHING you can attribute to technology - I mean literally almost anything invented since the 17th century - uses calculus?

And I don't think calculus is required for anything other than IT, maths, engineering and economics. There may be other fields that require it, but generally most arts degrees totally don't. I have friends learning history, and they haven't seen an integral in their lives, hell, not even an equiation.

So yeah, I don't think they teach calculus in college/university to anybody who doesn't need it.
But if you can show me a place that requires you to learn maths to become a historian, I will be consistent in my beliefs that that is a stupid requirement, unless someone is for example examining economics and history specifically.
Sociology - same. The hardest I have come across in sociology is basic boolean algebra.
I could go on.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38

And I don't think calculus is required for anything other than IT, maths, engineering and economics. There may be other fields that require it, but generally most arts degrees totally don't. I have friends learning history, and they haven't seen an integral in their lives, hell, not even an equiation.

That's exactly my point. Whereas the ability to deal with people who have opposing viewpoints on issues like politics is necessary no matter what lifestyle you choose or field of study you go into. I said it was less important, I didn't say it is generally not important.

Oh, I see-you are saying colleges don't require it for certain cirriculums. I don't know if they require calculus, but even in art math is required.

If colleges are only requiring classes that will be useful to people, my point still stands. Learning to deal with opposing viewpoints is important in all areas of life.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek83 what if you're proposing an idea about politics and the person you are proposing to calls you an "intellectual midget." Are you going to start crying and run out of the room, refusing to talk to this person again or are you going to use their behavior to make a point? What I'm suggesting would help in coping with such situations.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 lack of math ability hinders you from doing hundreds or even thousands of things. Lack of ability to tolerate anybody with an opposing viewpoint and being unable to cope with their presence hinders you from doing anything.

I never said I am bad at math, I just said not everybody needs to know it.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 if somebody has this much trouble completing a course which involves talking to somebody of a different political party, even about something non political, they desperately need this course. Honestly, this should be a very easy course for most people.

Other life skills could include cooking, growing food, budget-all of that stuff.

[Benedek38]

Math and calculus are totally not the same. You can't survive as an enterpreneous without basic maths skills. And many artists are independant to a certain extent. Not to mention stuff like drawing requires geometry and a sense of space. 3d modelling requires a basic understanding of the computer (also maths). Music requires you to understand basic physics.
Painting also requries physics to mix the right colors.
I could go on.

"Are you going to start crying and run out of the room, refusing to talk to this person again or are you going to use their behavior to make a point?"
Thank you, I am already adequate at debating, you don't have to try to talk down to me. The reason I called you an intellectual midget is because you demonstrated that you didn't even bother to understand how calculus changed human history.

B ut that's not why I am shutting down this conversation. I will say it one last time: we disagree on fundamental premises. The debate is destined to fail.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38

I never said calculus didn't change human history. I said calculus was less important than the ability to tolerate being in the vicinity and sharing space with somebody who has different views on politics. I would argue that if everybody was inept at doing that, there would be no human history to begin with. Me saying this is absolutely vital and a necessity in life and this isn't, isn't me saying "calculus is useless on a broad scale and has no reason to exist."

I never said I didn't know calculus.

Music requires physics or intuition. Same with art.

You are either the poster child for self-enhancing an ability you perceive yourself to have and the degree to which you have it or you are leading me on at this point. "Mixing colors requires physics." Three year olds can mix colors. Mixing colors requires basic knowledge of what color combinations make what color combinations.

Whether you self-aggrandize in debates or have been pulling my leg this whole time

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 I appreciate this dialogue. It has allowed me to see things from a different perspective and rebuke potential dissent and counterarguments. So either thank you for taking the time to discuss and debate this with me or thank you for wasting your time BSing me. Either way, It helped a lot.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 Two last things

Music doesn't require knowledge of physics. I don't know why I said that.

If you were being serious this entire time, your total lack of self awareness "don't talk down to me... intellectual midget" is astonishing. I'm guessing you consider every debate you participate in a win for you.

[Benedek38]

Jesus, would you STOP MESSAGING ME?
Listen. If you want a debate, let's organise a real time debate or something. I talk, you talk, I talk, you talk - make it constructive.
This method of yours, of flooding me with no real arguments, just repeating and hitting the same points over and over again, getting sidetracked, etc... it doesn't work.
I don't have the time, patience, or interest even, to respond to 3 or 4 comments written in quick succession. Again, you want a debate - make it live or something. The constricted 1000 character format, and your obnoxious overtalking makes this conversation the exact opposite of constructive. I mean, seriously, in the past what? 20 minutes, you sent me 3 comments. 4 bfore that, 3 before that. or something like that. You can't be serious.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm down to organize an actual debate. I don't like this massive message thread either, but if you bring up new points I am going to respond.

Although, if you continue arguing I am going to respond. If you don't, I won't. So just tell me what time works for you and on what platform.

I will point out though, you sent four messages in quick succession earlier on. And you keep USING CAPS LIKE THIS. And you keep insulting me for no reason while I'm trying to be generally friendly (until now). Do you completely lack self-awareness? You are a total hypocrite.

If, after that, you still want to debate name your platform of choice. However, since you are a stranger on the internet, I will only do vocal debate. And before you call me a hypocrite, wearing a bag over your head is perfectly acceptable under the first amendment.

If you live locally, we could debate in person.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I will not wear a bag on my head. But I won't go out of my way either.

[Benedek38]

You know, calling me a hypocrite doesn't help your case.
I told you: We disagreed on basic premises. I tried to get you to accept those premises. You didn't.
I tried to get you to acknowledge the scientifically proven fact that positive feedback is more effective in teaching than negative feedback. You disregarded this point.

My reasoning hinges among others, on this very basic principle. If you refuse to acknowledge it, I don't see what could change. That is why I was frustrated with you, and that is why I don't wish to continue the debate unless the format is easier to handle.

And yes I am guilty of Walls of Text, too, but you can't deny that the topic has strayed so far from the original issue that it was almost pointless for me to answer - a 4 comment long aswer means an 8 commetn long response, and 10 if you want to convey your own points. I didn't have the patience to that.
In the initial stages of the debate we were somewhat on point, that is wy I dared to write more.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek38 Different people respond to different types of motivation. I'm not in disagreement that positive motivation could work, but as I said in an earlier comment it would take a lot more than snacks to motivate somebody. I'm not sure what colleges could provide as a positive incentive that is within the budget.

If you can name a scenario in which being able to tolerate a person with different political viewpoints and converse with them about... anything... is not an absolutely necessary skill to possess. A scenario in which you can go through life, safe in the knowledge that lacking that knowledge won't impact you.

I didn't mean to disregard it. I'm not against positive motivation but I don't see how it can be implemented effectively. And how it can be implemented without negatively impacting those who aren't being motivated.

Which platform would you choose?

[Benedek38]

"it would take a lot more than snacks to motivate somebody."

You don't know that. Not until we discussed the methods of motivating people in the first place.

"I'm not sure what colleges could provide as a positive incentive that is within the budget."

I don't know how it is where you live, around here we have "credits" for individual classes. At the end of the year having more credits than the average amount automatically buffs your average accumulated mark. This means that a subject with a high credit value that is also interesting and is tackling real life issues, AND that doesn't require a test at the end of the semester, only participation, is DESTINED to be successful.
I have taken up way worse classes before just for their credit value.

"A scenario in which you can go through life, safe in the knowledge that lacking that knowledge won't impact you."
Sure. Teacher. Firefighter. IT technician. I could go on. You'd be a cunt, but you would make do.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@Benedek83

On which platform would you like to continue this debate?

[Benedek38]

I honestly don't know. Nothing right now. I am actually studying for my exams, so this was probably a bad time to bring it up. I think we should discuss it later. I'll follow you, follow me back, and we'll talk about it later, if you don't mind.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Sounds good to me. Good luck on your exams. I mean that genuinely

[Logorithim]

Good points. I have a number of friends who have very different political views (albeit not extreme ones) than me and they're not going to lose my friendship over it. No one is going to agree with you all the time, there will always be some disagreement and it is no big deal. Shutting down debate and discussion is extremely harmful.

[goaded]

Do any of them think you should be sent to a gas chamber, like a Jew?

Or that you should have to obey their every desire, like a woman?

Differences of opinion on economics are one thing, differences about how groups of people "should" behave are another.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@goaded mainstream political views. In the real world, a person would get fired for suggesting a jew should be gassed. That said, even that sort of language wouldn't disqualify you from the space/program. But, understandably, that guy might not want to be your partner.

If both wanted to continue for whatever reason, that would be permitted as well.

But no, there's no point in a BLM activist debating a guy who believes in eugenics and black people should be sentenced to death.

[goaded]

Nobody needs a safe space from mainstream political views, except, perhaps, people still insisting that trickle-down economics works (it's been decades, people, learn from experience!).

People do need safe spaces from violence and threats.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@goaded which would not be permitted. I put not safe in quotes so the idea wouldn't be misinterpreted as "once a week student's lives are endangered to prepare them for the real world." If two people want to brawl, fine. They can do that elsewhere.

[lilaqua]

As someone who is in university I actually don't understand why everyone complains about "safe spaces". People have a right to insulate themselves from dissenting opinion in a space if they want to, it's a part of freedom of association but in reality it's quite rare. Of course there's the "women's space" and "LGBTQIA+ space" on campus but I think they're entitled to that since they went out of their way to organise it. Weirdly enough the most offensive and radical right wing opinions I've heard have been at uni, i've heard more of that than I have of the reverse. Uni isn't a "safe space", most of us are all pretty apolitical and centralistic really (and I study politics) and there's a pretty free discussion surrounding whatever ideas people have, even the outlandish. "Echo chambers" exist but they're a small percentage of the population and you have to seek them out, for the majority of us they're kind of a joke, when all we want to do is fuck, drink and get high.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Maybe the political scene is different in Australia, although according to some of what I've heard, that's not always the case. I accidentally subscribed to gold coast news. No idea if that's a reliable source in general though.

In America there's definitely an intense push for safe spaces and trigger warnings, even in situations where they do not apply. In law school, no student should be avoiding a class about Rape and how to prosecute in those situations because it is upsetting. It doesn't matter if you hate blood-if you're a doctor you have to deal with it.

When you say "echo chambers" - do you mean physical spaces set aside for people who share the same beliefs? I meant in a mental sense, I really hope they aren't implementing actual "echo chambers" - that's an abhorrent idea. I don't know if that's what you were talking about but your comment about "seeking them out to eat weed, drink, and fuck" makes me wonder and fear.

[lilaqua]

What I mean is that it's your right to seek a group that has an echo chamber mentality if you want, and that's what it's like on campus. If you want to have freedom of speech, don't associate with those people which is easy enough since they're a very small minority, the actual university doesn't care. I've met more alt righters and white supremacists on campus than I have SJWs. With the trigger warning thing i've seen it once, in one lecture where we talked about the use of wartime rape in Bosnia - Herzegovina. The lecturer basically said if you find this confronting or triggering, feel free to walk out, which even for someone who finds it difficult to feel uncomfortable the subject matter ultimately did. It works in this situation because the subject was made purely as an introduction to the course, most people wouldn't study war time rape at all during university and the course is designed so you can write your essay on what you want.

[lilaqua]

In a situation like law, the university isn't stupid enough to graduate students who couldn't deal with all of the content that they would ultimately encounter in their professions. It's cut throat enough to get into those courses so a student wouldn't risk jeopardising their work and effort if they were so sensitive in the first place. When i've seen trigger warnings they're mostly used rather appropriately.

And no what I mean is that to the normal college student, aka me who wants to find their passion but is also more interested in the mean time with partying and fucking, social activists seem ridiculous and crazy. Even the fucking politics lecturers say similar stuff. Much like how you advocate for free speech, these people have the right to say what they want and associate how they want.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I agree that, in situations like the one you mentioned, trigger warnings are reasonable. Or at least a "heads up, I am going to show ______." And I certainly hope you're correct about the other situation.

It's fine if people want to remain inside their own echo chamber... As long as they can tolerate opposing viewpoints if they are out and about in society. The problem is, either they are not used to this and they break upon contact with the outside world and opposing views, or they attempt to change the world so it caters to them, sometimes at the expense of constitutional rights. In America, there have been several instances of this- Speakers being banned from college campuses, riots breaking out. Dissenters are faceless, nameless, vessels of evil hell bent on destroying their way of life and must be stopped.

Also, how do you define Alt-right and white supremacist?

[Pamina]

Most people who complain about safe spaces don't even know what they actually aree to begin with. I'm sure the original intend of safe spaces has been bastardized for ridiculous things and all, but sadly once again the backlash ends at the other extreme where the original, reasonable intend of sadfe spaces is being ignored completely or not even known of.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I don't have issues with safe spaces, but there needs to be balance. I've been in treatment for anxiety, ED etc. I consider being offended an uncomfortable emotional/physical feeling, not quite on the level of anxiety, genuine fear, or depression. Treatment recognizes the importance of preparing patients for the world.

College needs to as well. It's a well accepted fact in psychology that avoiding discomfort is detrimental to a person long term. No reason that should apply differently to these situations.

[Pamina]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Glad we are on the same page. I don't understand the down vote on your answer.

[Pamina]

I'd downvoted for saying what my favorite color is. I've become very unpopular on here recently. But I'm enjoying it.

[JimRSmith]

Something has to be done, you're right.

And well done for making a proposal, rather than just moaning about it as many do.

I'm glad I'm not at university these days.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Universities were created to host the free exchange of ideas. As science progressed, that free exchange morphed into a free exchange of ideas that are *backed up by evidence*. Often, Conservative ideas are bereft of evidence that support their validity and Conservatives themselves often maintain a worldview that doesn't emphasize evidence as an indicator of truthfulness.

At one point in the past, I got a degree in political science. One of the kids in my cohort was a Conservative and a leader of the campus Republicans. He constantly argued with the professor about various topics, but he was rarely able to produce evidence to back up his claims.

Now, they didn't have "safe spaces" when I was in school so I don't really know what they're like, but I assume they are places students can go to be free of illogical nonsense like what my classmate put forth every day in my PoliSci classes.

[SnakeOilByShore]

Depends on which conservative ideas. I read a lot of different studies and posts and all sorts of stuff on the internet. Though I'm a liberal, I can present evidence to support most conservative beliefs.

If somebody goes in to a situation believing "conservatives are... illogical/stupid/unable to provide evidence" they will look for examples of that to back up their belief. Everybody is vulnerable to that, but it's dangerous territory to suggest that a biased perception justifies being protected from conservative thought. A lot of liberals have no evidence at all and just quote the news. A lot of conservatives have no evidence and just quote alternative news. Some liberals and conservatives are well informed and, for a well informed person, it's kind of a toss up. There's arguments to be made for either side's views on an issue.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Oh, of course. The same shit goes down on both sides. And, consider what "safe spaces" were designed to do - to make students feel comfortable enough to talk about certain topics. What are they being protected from? Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. All things that have a wide variety of alternative viewpoints and very little evidence to support any of them. It's not like we're protecting kids from alternative approaches to economic prosperity, or different views on foreign affairs.

Personally, I'm a Liberal but when I hear about safe spaces I just want to sigh and tell kids to put on their big-boy/girl pants. They do have something of a point, though, in that the majority of the "ideas" they are being sheltered from aren't valid in any scientific framework one may choose to apply.

Although, I could be completely wrong about what goes on in safe spaces. As I said, they didn't exist when I was in college.

[NaultD]

I think you are using "safe place" incorrectly. You make a safe place for yourself. If you live in a home that beats you then go somewhere you feel safe. Sure it can drop from underneath you and feel disappointed. but If your prompting a "safe place" it's the same as free wifi.

Colleges is a transformative power being away from your normal home life. Student's tend to leave there home if not the city they are born.

Do you watch rick and morty? In anatomy park, morty is inside some homeless dude. Morty shows a change because rick is not over his shoulder. Sure your feelings linger but getting away from abuse is refreshing.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I think you're talking about a different kind of safe space. No college student should be beaten. I don believe in changing abuse laws. Abuse is abuse and should remain a crime. And, even in a not safe space, physical violence would not be tolerated.

I do watch Rick and Morty

[D_Bone_Steak]

I was in college over 10 years ago. Safe space was the library to study. Unsafe space was the basic classes as a freshman where you still had to deal with the dumb asses that seek attention. 3 years into it though, those people have all dropped out and literally don't exist. People that are there to just learn don't have time for the offended/offensive bullshit... but then again, I have a Science degree and didn't dabble much in the arts. I wanted to, but philosophy classes was on opinion based bullshit instead of logic 9.99 times out of 10. I was all about some True premise + True premise = True conclusion and so on type of structure to argument stuff while the classes were allowing some really dumb emotional shit to go down. After a while... fuck the arts. It's too hard for me to just look past the facts and feel sorry for groups... then make up excuses for them. No... facts first.

[HikerDude]

Unfortunately, that's not the trend. Free speech, once seen as a virtue on college campuses, is now considered a luxury. College kids believe now that free speech should not be maintained at the expense of the potential offense it could create.

My younger sister is in college and her dorm told everyone not to talk to minority kids unless they initiated the exchange. I was like, what? Apparently, this was part of an effort to make minority kids feel welcome, and apparently the admin was afraid that white kids might say something offensive to them.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I swear, its gotten to the point where people are unable to socially interact with each other and have to be guided by some speech monitor. If somebody says something offensive, the other person should speak up.

Being offended is not dangerous. If it happens, it happens. And the students can talk and make sure it happens again.

I'm sure you agree w that sentiment, but it's amazing how many people do not

[HikerDude]

I went to school with all sorts of people, and no one worried whether I was offended by anything. I got called "cracker" by black kids and had Asian kids yell things at me in Chinese that I'm sure weren't flattering. I had a teacher who was one of my coaches essentially call me "faggot" in class. I don't advocate that by any means, but I lived. I didn't die just because someone said something I didn't like. Who cares, after all, what someone else thinks. It's their business, not yours.

[SnakeOilByShore]

That sounds like a miserable experience. Takes me back to my own high school days, reading that.

by the way me saying Im sure you agree with that sentiment-I meant the idea that college kids are being forced to abide by this PC culture, not every other thing I said. Clarifying that for my sake because "opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion, I'm sure you agree with all my opinions" comes across as a tad narcissistic.

Not worried you're offended, I'm not offended. Just don't want people to get the wrong impression.

I've been in treatment for an ED before. Treatment teaches you *how* to deal with uncomfortable comments. That's an important part of it. How to respond when family member does this. And you're not supposed to respond by avoiding the situation. Mental health treatment recognizes that the world isn't a safe space. I wish colleges could do the same.

[HikerDude]

Yeah, going to school in the city is like being in fight club. Offense is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe in giving as well as I get. I don't believe that minorities deserve special treatment or safe spaces to protect them from the messiness of the real world.

[SC4321]

Being primarily conservative in my views, and having just graduated from an extremely liberal college, I like the concept you're presenting. Though I don't think it would ever become something colleges would adopt as a graduation requirement, as most colleges are too deeply entrenched in their liberal beliefs to ever allow something like this. So many students leave college each year having been bit by the liberal virus and getting too easily offended by the stupidest things. They won't make it in the real world like that.

[SirRexington]

We already have "not safe spaces". They are called places that aren't safe spaces. Even more specifically we have debates and speakers come to universities to voice their opinions and debate with students. Only problem is that the sjws are picking and choosing who speaks and who doesn't.

Safe spaces also exist, they are called dorms. A group of like minded individuals can also ask to use a room to gather and talk amongst themselves. They don't need nor should they get desegregated safe spaces that can't be occupied by others.
Might I also point out that these left wingers who hate private property and want everything to be either unowned or owned collectively also want their own private safe spaces solely designed to exclude? Sounds pretty hypocritical and dangerous doesn't it?

[goaded]

You mean like this guy, being saluted with Nazi salutes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLNLPIRS62g

We've run the experiment where these guys are allowed free hand, and it left Europe devastated.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's just the classes that you are taking. I recently graduated with two BAs in Political Science and International Studies at a very liberal college. You HAD to be able to read a room, express your opinions intelligently, and be able to open to different view points - or you simply didn't graduate. Maybe if you're studying something like Accounting or Education you might not have those opportunities to learn those skill sets. But if it interests you why don't you just take more poli sci courses?

[Servus09]

We have safe spaces already. It's called your dorm room and an apartment.

Besides, nobody forces you to express your stupid opinions on race and politics. If you can't handle someone challenging those opinions, then keep your mouth shut.

The school I went to has safe spaces. Guess who's not allowed into these spaces. White people. So we have a state school, that is funded by state tax-dollars, promoting segregation based on race. I think we can all agree it's not ok when white people segregate themselves, and it's not ok when "people of color" are racist and segregate themselves either.

[jessicake]

"not safe spaces" are just every space that isn't a "safe space" out in the real world. I think having safe spaces is important because it's actually the one place where people feel more free to express their opinions, conservative or liberal. In general, being liberal out in public isn't widely accepted by the majority. Having 'safe spaces" allow people with unpopular beleifs, opinions, and whatnot to be and feel well.. safe.

[Benedek38]

"I think having safe spaces is important because it's actually the one place where people feel more free to express their opinions, conservative or liberal."

I think this is an ideal concept, but practice proves that safe spaces tend to become ideologically insulated and not acceptive of all political views.

The official definition is:
"a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm."

Now, tell me again, if I went into one of these safe spaces, I strapped on a swastika armband, and started spouting nazi propaganda, would it still be a safe space for me? All evidence to the contrary.

"In general, being liberal out in public isn't widely accepted by the majority."
Bullshit.

[Benedek38]

"Having 'safe spaces" allow people with unpopular beleifs, opinions, and whatnot to be and feel well.. safe."
I told you, as long as I don't see far right political ideologies in safe spaces, I have to say the definition doesn't reflect reality.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@jessicake

Depends on where you are I guess. Where I live conservatism is not accepted. Conservatives are looked down upon. Hell, my own parents trash conservatives on a regular basis.

I have no issue with safe spaces, but I think colleges also need to set up not safe spaces.

The difference between a not safe space and general society would be the fact that in a not safe space you can say whatever you want, short of threats or violence, with no consequences. In society, people can report another person for harassment or making them feel uncomfortable.

Not safe space is more extreme than reality, much like an exposure is for people with anxiety.

[Guanfei]

Expressing your opinions to who? People who have the same? What's the point? They'll agree, you won't debate because everyone share the same opinion, and nothing change.

[JZ909]

I'm not sure if this is really necessary. College campuses should be about learning, not polarized debate. If I'm trying to be a software engineer and going for a computer science degree, I don't need to be able to coherently argue my thoughts on Trump vs. Clinton.

Is there value in having coherent political views? Sure. Is it required to work in a particular field? Mostly no.

[torken]

To quote Lucille Bluth:

"They should put all the rapists and all the murderers and put them all together on an island and all the murderers can get raped, and all the rapists can be murdered, until you only have either two rapists or you're down to one raped murderer but who cares about him?"

[Anonymous]

People want to get away from the lies and ridiculous conspiracy theories promulgated by Trump and his supporters. I understand the desire to be heard, but if the right didn't so much rely on lies and ridiculous conspiracy theories, they would more easily be heard, and people would want to discuss issues with them.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I don't think that's a partisan issue. I see that taking place on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives consider a lot of the things liberals peddle conspiracies and liberals consider a lot of the things Conservatives peddle conspiracies. Both liberals and conservatives lie and spin. Both conservatives and liberals believe only the other side engages in those sorts of behavior.

[Opinion Owner]

SnakeOilByShore: This degree of lies and dishonesty by this administration, and by many of Trump's followers, is camouflaged by the supposed bilateral acts being equal. That is just a way of covering up how truly enmeshed in lies and deceit, Trump and his buddies are. Trump and his followers, have truly gotten to a new low in morality for a president. A president who is more concerned about his feelings, more than what is good for the country. A president whose MO is to lie and deflect from truth in numerous spheres. There is no: "it's on both sides", because the disparity in the number of lies and deceitful acts, keeping information and facts from the American people, by Trump and his helpers, is no where near what has been done on the other side of the aisle. Saying Democrats are doing the same thing, as if it was equal, is just another lie by Trump, another attempt at subterfuge, to keep the truth from being known and understood. Trump's lies and deceit work well with his base.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm running on about three hours of sleep here, so I misunderstood your comment and thought you were talking about conservatives. Now I see you never mentioned conservatives. I agree with you on Trump-he will turn anything into a conspiracy.

Still though, discussing conspiracies and lies really isn't dangerous. I see no reason students should be insulated from those types of discussions. I love debating conspiracy theorists because it's so damn easy. "Five million illegal immigrants voted." "Where is your proof?" *link to Alex Jones or some other Youtube commentator.* "Where did he get this information?" *crickets*

[Opinion Owner]

It's not the discussing of conspiracies that is the problem. The problem lies in the basic dishonesty that so often accompanies them, that the conspiracy theory is accurate, despite lack of proof, except from off the rail right wing sites, which will back up just about any conspiracy. When falsehood is accepted at truth, or discussed as if it is truth, it is indeed harmful, as it dilutes what we understand as truth and proof, and can so muddy the water, that people accept as fact, what is not at all proven, or even very reasonable. Another way of putting it: If a lie is repeated often enough, people start believing it. That is very dangerous to freedom.

[SnakeOilByShore]

The first amendment permits lying and spreading misinformation. Comes with the territory. Also, who determines what is and isn't a lie?

If conspiracy theorists were silenced, that would be a threat to freedom. The fact that they're allowed to spread their delusions is proof of freedom.

[Opinion Owner]

SnakeOilByShore: The issue was not do they have freedom of speech, but do others have to listen to their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Re. who determines if it's a lie or not? That is one of the goals of conspiracy theorists, to blur the distinction between fact and fiction, between truth and lie. That's one very good reason to avoid conspiracy theorists, and when they are lying, to get right to the point, and tell them it doesn't make sense, and it's a lie. Truth is backed up by viable facts. Lies are backed up by innuendos and falsehoods. They will be exposed, if given enough time, or if you have enough time to research. So many of the conspiracy theories are really have little basis to rest on, and if you will just look with a skeptical mood, you will usually see the holes in the story. And of course, if it comes from a compulsive liar like Trump, there is no need to research the issue, as he is so full of lies, there is no reason to believe anything he says.

[goaded]

You might both like to read this...
www.nytimes.com/.../conservative-free-speech.html

[shephardjhon]

I was going to say it sounds ridiculous and just asking for MORE echo-chambers but then you said ""life prep" programs, including debate."
TOTALLY agreed.
Also, not just debate. They should talk to people with opposing views about other things, things they could agree on. About other problems that BOTH sides are facing, e. g. jobs.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I agree, that's why I think the introduction sheet with hobbies and potentially similar interests should be distributed and any topic should be permitted, not just political.

[Anonymous]

We defenitley do the problem is any free speech is now shut down by PC Nazis protesting and getting violent. Everyone is looking for something to be offended by and colleges indulge this behaviour

[goaded]

What about the safe space G@G gives you by allowing you to post anonymously?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded say the wrong thing and your post is censored or your account deleted. GAG only allows certain PC opinions.

[goaded]

Like what? What opinions are beyond the pale? There have been multiple Nazis on this site; I won't name them because that's against the rules (and they've pretty much all blocked me).

I'm pretty sure you won't get chucked off for giving examples, and if you do, I'll leave, too.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded there are multiple communists and Islamic extremists too. There are Christian extremists too. But it's conservative Christians that get silenced.

[goaded]

They seem pretty vocal to me.

[Anon-ymous1]

*TRIGGER WARNING*: "Trigger Warnings" and "Safe Spaces" Are Really Dumb, People. ↗

[Anon-ymous1]

Yeah, there should be "not safe" spaces on college campuses--- it's the entire campus.

[girl_with_questionz]

Its like a mandatory debate team then. Fine by me, I love arguing with people. Probably too much lol.

[JohnFrost]

I agree but i think its good for people to get confronted with issues they didn't think of. A non safe space (or trigger space) is nice but it should not be possible for a student to go there whole study without confrontation. A huge part of college is the clash with a lot of different people and ideas.

[Guanfei]

Safe spaces are just places where people with the same opinions glorifies themselves and find an common enemy on who they will put anything bad happening to them, without anyone discussing it.
This is not safe, this is just life smelling your own farts and enjoy it as if it was channel N°5.

[bubble_tea]

Are there moderators in safe spaces? I'd say no moderator in "not safe" spaces either. They need to learn how to resolve a dispute without mediation 😂

[SnakeOilByShore]

I would agree, but there has to be a bit of moderation to make sure things don't turn physical and people aren't shouting threats at each other, neither of which is within the scope of the first amendment.

One or two guys there to step in if things get out of hand. Not involved in the discussions otherwise

[IconAura]

maybe a police officer to enforce rules, like no fighting or raising of voices or something

[goaded]

@IconAura Maybe just give them both a gun. An armed society is a polite society, after all.

[bubble_tea]

So, a "not 100% safe", but "95% safe" space? If you want to prepared for life after college, you should learn to de-escalate situations yourself and not rely on others to help you deal with bad situations you've willingly put yourself in. Also, this is college, not a bar that MMA fighters frequent.

[bubble_tea]

@IconAura Of course. Make it safe!

[bubble_tea]

@goaded Yes! This will end a discussion too.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I agree, however I think discussions in the "not safe" space should fall within the scope of the first amendment. The first amendment permits all speech, but if it directly leads to violence it is not permitted.

[SnakeOilByShore]

@IconAura I think that would defeat the purpose.

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm fine with martial arts as another course, but the point of a "not safe" space isn't to teach fighting techniques. I put it in quotes because it isn't actually dangerous, it just isn't a protective bubble.

[bubble_tea]

Who said there are going to be any fist fights? Why are you so certain that it's going to end that way when you debate stuff? Are college people more violent than gang members now?

[SnakeOilByShore]

I'm saying if there are fist fights, they need to be dealt with. I don't think there will be.

The moderator is there largely to set up and hold people accountable for showing up. And, if necessary, report fistfights.

I think people are more violent nowadays when it comes to debating controversial opinions.

[IconAura]

@goaded shit man I'm up to defending myself but Id hate to have some dick draw faster and shot me dead before I could react because of the spur of the moment

[IconAura]

its so they don't physically hurt each other, say what ya want just don't damage property or people, besides they are getting paid anyway and on campus they don't have enough to do

[IconAura]

you'd be surprised how violent people can get, a chick with a dyed crew cut tried to fight me once because "I looked at her like I hated her", shoved me as I backed away :/