Basically every college protest that has been dominating the news cycle for the last two weeks.

 

For example in Missouri they were protest in a open public space and forcibly removed student journalist because the public square was their "safe space".

 

With what you're describing, I agree that this would sound to be overkill, and goes against and dilutes the original intent of the safe space program.

 

I wasn't on top of the current story, so I wasn't following your basis for bringing up the topic, and jumped to assume that the original intent of the program itself was being misunderstood.

 

My apologies as it is now obvious to me that what I was expanding on was overkill on my part as it didn't fit you drawing attention to the current situation, and in doing so I most likely have hi-jacked the thread making others who might've chimed in stay away for not wanting to bother plowing through my long off topic rants that didn't follow what you we're originally getting at. :o

With what you're describing, I agree that this would sound to be overkill, and goes against and dilutes the original intent of the safe space program.

 

I wasn't on top of the current story, so I wasn't following your basis for bringing up the topic, and jumped to assume that the original intent of the program itself was being misunderstood.

 

My apologies as it is now obvious to me that what I was expanding on was overkill on my part as it didn't fit you drawing attention to the current situation, and in doing so I most likely have hi-jacked the thread making others who might've chimed in stay away for not wanting to bother plowing through my long off topic rants that didn't follow what you we're originally getting at. :o

 

No problem I was just confused.

In broad terms I don't have a problem with "safe spaces." I'm a believer in the value of free speech (going beyond simply discussing the First Amendment), but it's also important to have a reprieve from it, whether it's a home, office, church, club, "safe space" on a college campus, or whatever.

 

I'm more concerned with "silencing," which I would define to include attempts to punish people for holding opinions you find disagreeable. It is silencing because it has the affect of keeping dissenting opinions quiet out of fear of consequences or to remove the platform for the person.

 

I distinguish that from something I would consider more akin to tolerance, which is to disagree and debate. I would consider this "tolerance" because it acknowledges that people disagree yet don't have to accept the opinions of someone else, i.e. "to each their own," or "I disagree with you because..." and not "you should be fired!"

 

I say this because I think there are competing notions at stake. On one hand, I believe there is an idea that a free society is enriched through vigorous debate over competing points of view, which requires some level of tolerance (I think this is, in part, the spirit of the First Amendment). On the other hand, I believe there is also a belief that the ideal society will stamp out beliefs it finds abhorrent, and to an extent we've already done this with a lot of things, e.g. speaking positively of the Holocaust is beyond taboo and absolutely no one is demanding we have a more vigorous, engaging debate over it.

 

I think both have their merits. At least one of the arguments in support of free speech is that the "marketplace of ideas" will weed out the bad. And that's largely through the consequences "bad" speech engenders: You have a right to say what you want, but not a right to avoid criticism.

 

I see two things going on with these debates over speech, safe spaces, coddling, and the like: 1) It does seem to me that there is a tendency for us, collectively, to skew toward tolerance or silencing depending on which side of the fracas we are on and 2) I think what's caused this to be such an issue is that we want to skip the debate and jump right to the taboo. In other words, we want to declare certain speech the loser in the "marketplace of ideas" without first winning the debate, so to speak.

What I have posted in my entire body of postings in this thread is solid rationality and an attempt to give an explanation to your initial question.

 

I tried to make head or tails of what you're going on about, but am having trouble grasping what your fuss is about.

 

I read your post time and time again, but failed to see clearly what your gripe is as it came across to me with a loose foundation for what I assume you consider to be a solid rational foundation of thought.

 

I've presented numerous realistic points of information to support justification for the safe space program, and am waiting for you give rational justification for your objections that give merit to your reasons for making a case against it.

 

As of now it comes across as simply whining as if anyone has been damaged in the process of so many benefitting from it to avoid being damaged. Who has it hurt while in the bigger picture it has helped so many?

 

 

I really enjoyed reading your thought-provoking and insightful posts on this subject.

Here is a thought provoking article for you two:

 

This is Not a Day Care. It's a University! - Oklahoma Wesleyan University