“Safe Spaces” and the Mote in America's Eye

http://popehat.com/2015/04/19/safe-spaces-and-the-mote-in-americas-eye/

by aptwebapps • 11 years ago

104 88 11 years ago

tomlock8• 11 years ago

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.

angersock7• 11 years ago

The link is basically that a lot of the people arguing for these safe spaces are the same ones that will petition, slander, or decry the folks on the conservative side of things.

You don't get to, for example, run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter and still claim that you aren't aligned, at least in principal and methods, with the enemies of liberty--no matter how worthy your cause otherwise.

The other issue is that, culturally speaking, the mindset of those critical of microagressions and identity politics and other important issues also tends to dismiss or antagonize folks that are very much supportive of liberty or free speech or the right to bear arms. This ends up in a lot of sapping of resources on both sides as they fight over things as trivial as whether or not you can get married in a church.

It's actually very convenient to the folks in charge, if you want to be cynical.

strangecasts2• 11 years ago

run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter

What are you referring to here?

Frondo11• 11 years ago

Vicious media smear campaigns? Automated blcaklists as enemies of freedom? Come on. The gamergaters are making death and rape threats and publishing people's home addresses, the targets of those threats are blocking them from view. There's no equivalence here.

As for the word salad about liberty and guns, it almost sounds like you're trolling.

aptwebapps6• 11 years ago

Yes, there's some unfortunate ambiguity in his use of the term. If you aren't familiar with his stuff, follow the link with the text 'entitled to a "safe space"'[0] to see what he's talking about. And I don't think he objects to people being angry when they're offended - that is illogical at best. He objects to the sort of behavior he links to where the college student in question is trying to get the school to either pull funding for the school newspaper or appointment 'adult supervision' for writing a pretty innocuous complaint about other's behavior [1] (warning: it's a bit opaque).

0. http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-di... 1. http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-camp...

tomlock8• 11 years ago

Unfortunately for the people that use the term I'm pretty sure that the ambiguity does not exist. It is exceptionally easy for me to read this article as a direct criticism of all safe spaces, while the author draws a link that seems very vague and actually counter to what I've experienced in those spaces.

I'm all for criticizing these spaces but the article draws a very bewildering link between a misunderstanding of liberty with the people that support them. That's a tenuous connection, at best.

The article confuses me and it doesn't feel like the author has a familiarity with the typical politics of people that frequent safe spaces.

zerocrates2• 11 years ago

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."

tomlock8• 11 years ago

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.

candu2• 11 years ago

Since this comment thread has risen to the top, here's the link to the Shulevitz op-ed again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul...

late2part• 11 years ago

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.

parfe2• 11 years ago

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.

tsotha8• 11 years ago

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.

It seems you and I live in a different country.

bandrami• 11 years ago

It seems you and I live in a different country.

Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. "Safe spaces" give straight white men the slightest taste of what the rest of the world is like for people who aren't that trifecta. And, predictably, we straight white men freak the hell out when exposed to that...

aptwebapps6• 11 years ago

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

He didn't do that.

He used the term 'safe spaces' to talk about something else, which was obviously a mistake but please don't get hung up on the terminology and read the whole and follow a few of the links.

parfe2• 11 years ago

He didn't do that.

You must have read his writing differently than I considering he wrote:

I call these young people out for valuing illusory and subjective safety over liberty.

theVirginian2• 11 years ago

This isn't tumblr...

formulaT6• 11 years ago

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.

tomlock8• 11 years ago

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!

_bfhp4• 11 years ago

Women are photoshopped and presented as objects in the mainstream media. Women are constantly getting in trouble or losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, e.g. "no" to sex and harassment.

IvanDenisovich3• 11 years ago

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.

formulaT6• 11 years ago

The debate is also settled this way in real politics, it's just that outside some universities, Jewish feelings win.

EDIT: for downvoters: why is it ok to point out diversity politics in universities and not in US politics?

IvanDenisovich3• 11 years ago

hi formulaT. I was just giving the Israel-Palestinian debate as one example of a bigger issue. No need to hijack the conversation in that direction.

_bfhp4• 11 years ago

Do you have any evidence that any of this is actually the case? In my experience it is Zionist feelings verses actual facts that BDS activists present about Israel's expansion. Your anecdotes against mine, I suppose.

scarmig• 11 years ago

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.

IvanDenisovich3• 11 years ago

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".

douche2• 11 years ago

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?

theVirginian2• 11 years ago

Hey! Get those facts out of here!

SwellJoe5• 11 years ago

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.

douche2• 11 years ago

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.

nav1• 11 years ago

You don't have to be in a minority in order to be marginalised. It's like saying that since black people make up the majority of South Africa, the idea that the white minority could oppress them is laughable. It has more to do with power than numbers.

_bfhp4• 11 years ago

when you control public opinion

What does this mean and where is the actual documentary evidence to back it up (assuming that whatever it means would need such things)?

SwellJoe5• 11 years ago

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.

aptwebapps6• 11 years ago

I never would have posted this if I understood it they way you did. Being a long time reader of the blog I didn't pay too much attention to the term 'safe spaces' because I already knew what he was referring to to. See my other comments in the thread if you're interested in my interpretation but in general I think he should not have used that term.

grovulent2• 11 years ago

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...

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.

SwellJoe5• 11 years ago

"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).

chipsy• 11 years ago

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.

sologoub• 11 years ago

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...

_bfhp4• 11 years ago

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)

venomsnake• 11 years ago

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 ...

“Safe Spaces” and the Mote in America's Eye

Related Stories