Student Accused of Violating 'Safe Space' by... raising her hand? HOW DARE SHE!!!!

[Drathnoxis]

A big problem of the internet is how it provides a medium for people to drag private disagreements into the public. I only skimmed the article but this seems like the sort of thing that, 20 years ago, would have just sort of happened and then everybody involved would just move on or resolve it privately. These days, however, it gets posted online and people who aren't involved in any way start taking sides and the argument grows and grows. I just don't think it's very healthy for society to get the entire world involved every time there's a disagreement.

 

[Something Amyss]

So yeah, this incredibly one-sided story should be taken with so much salt. Something sounds iffy about how a room, which asked why the vice-president still hadn't responded to an open letter, were just a bunch of Anti-Semites that wanted to get rid of her for disagreeing with them by saying that putting her hand up violates their safe space. It sounds like that's barely half the picture.

Yeah, at this point it's less about safe spaces or hand raising so much as it is someone is making the accusation that people were trying to oust her on political grounds.

Keep in mind, the student also claims to support the safe space, she just didn't appreciate it being used to "silence" her.

Though I'm certain none of that's important to the story.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Sargon of Akkad is gonna have a field day with this.

So yeah, this incredibly one-sided story should be taken with so much salt. Something sounds iffy about how a room, which asked why the vice-president still hadn't responded to an open letter, were just a bunch of Anti-Semites that wanted to get rid of her for disagreeing with them by saying that putting her hand up violates their safe space. It sounds like that's barely half the picture.

Yeah, at this point it's less about safe spaces or hand raising so much as it is someone is making the accusation that people were trying to oust her on political grounds.

If this trend continues it will become an Orwellian nightmare.

 

[Gorrath]

Well, I suppose it can be distracting or possibly a bit daunting if people start making such gestures while you're speaking. I guess maybe the idea is to let people speak without not very useful judgement (as disagreement is limited to only during debate where it would be useful)?

I mean it sounds kind of ridiculous, but reflecting on it, it sounds like it would make it easier on the speaker possibly, and I'm not seeing a downside since gestures while someone else speaks doesn't accomplish anything. Not sure it would have much value but don't see the big problem.

Also I don't take the complainer seriously here. 'Hard left' and the old 'You're anti-semites!' accusation used to deflect criticism off Israel without addressing it

I find that I agree with you on the intent of the rule. It sounds a bit over the top but it is true that making negative gestures toward the podium during a debate serves no purpose. Those gestures add nothing more to a debate than randomly standing up and shouting, "I disagree," at the person presenting the arguments. All in all, one should get used to debating in a hostile environment if debate is something they want to do, but at the class room level, I can see why they'd want to avoid that.

As to your second point, accusing someone of being a racist/sexist ect. is a tried and true tradition. Nothing closes off addressing points quite like ad hominem!

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well, I suppose it can be distracting or possibly a bit daunting if people start making such gestures while you're speaking. I guess maybe the idea is to let people speak without not very useful judgement (as disagreement is limited to only during debate where it would be useful)?

I mean it sounds kind of ridiculous, but reflecting on it, it sounds like it would make it easier on the speaker possibly, and I'm not seeing a downside since gestures while someone else speaks doesn't accomplish anything. Not sure it would have much value but don't see the big problem.

Also I don't take the complainer seriously here. 'Hard left' and the old 'You're anti-semites!' accusation used to deflect criticism off Israel without addressing it

I find that I agree with you on the intent of the rule. It sounds a bit over the top but it is true that making negative gestures toward the podium during a debate serves no purpose. Those gestures add nothing more to a debate than randomly standing up and shouting, "I disagree," at the person presenting the arguments. All in all, one should get used to debating in a hostile environment if debate is something they want to do, but at the class room level, I can see why they'd want to avoid that.

Yeah I was kind of thinking learning to debate in a hostile environment might be good. It doesn't sound like it's a classroom environment, but I figure it's not like there's any benefit to them to make people learn to debate in a more hostile environment. The benefit, I suppose, is that it opens the conversation to people who may be less adept at handling it. And the cost seems minimal enough...

As to your second point, accusing someone of being a racist/sexist ect. is a tried and true tradition. Nothing closes off addressing points quite like ad hominem!

I mean I can see those accusations as possibly having some weight. Just my first impression when I see terms like 'hard left' is to distrust the speaker. And from experience I'm naturally disinclined to believe it when someone accuses someone of anti-semitism on something Israel related. It seems to happen a bit too frequently... I guess to be more fair I should listen to what she had to say about it. I just tend to have a snap judgement to hearing that now.

 

[Parasondox]

A big problem of the internet is how it provides a medium for people to drag private disagreements into the public. I only skimmed the article but this seems like the sort of thing that, 20 years ago, would have just sort of happened and then everybody involved would just move on or resolve it privately. These days, however, it gets posted online and people who aren't involved in any way start taking sides and the argument grows and grows. I just don't think it's very healthy for society to get the entire world involved every time there's a disagreement.

Sadly welcome to the internet age society. We need an audience in order to generate support for the things we say, whether they make any sense or not, and make that statement spread in order to feel some sort of gratification. If said person today is offended by something, that may not even be directed at the, they want the world to suddenly stop, light shun on them and the mic in front of them to be on with the speaker volume at full blast. The internet and the fast rise of social media has given said person a bigger and easier chance to express whatever. Sadly there is a certain extremist group who grew bigger and bigger because of the internet and social media. Using the medium to generate more nonsense and false thought and ideals to fuel the leaders ego.

Yes more people want to be heard and should be heard. That's a great thing. But is what you want to say, worth stopping the world for and grabbing the right attention? Think before you speak and have a clearer idea about what you want to say.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

I hate articles like this, its like those articles where they talk about putting cardboard in food shipped over from China. My confirmation bias says yes this probably could happen but I'm never sure. Welp I can only work with what I'm given here.

My main complaint is that if they don't want to hear any dissenting opinions, or even so much as dissenting gestures why are they presenting? And if not presenting isn't an option why are they doing it live? I could understand a rule where you aren't allowed to interrupt a presentation or make rude gestures at the presenter, but I think most of this stuff could be easily covered by saying "be respectful to the presenter".

 

[Something Amyss]

Sargon of Akkad is gonna have a field day with this.

Yes, peddling outrage to an audience that will uncritically eat it up and regurgitate it seems to be right in his wheelhouse. Nothing like the journalistic equivalent of repeating high school gossip to confirm an entrenched position. I wonder which elements of the story he'll omit here.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I hate articles like this, its like those articles where they talk about putting cardboard in food shipped over from China. My confirmation bias says yes this probably could happen but I'm never sure. Welp I can only work with what I'm given here.

My main complaint is that if they don't want to hear any dissenting opinions, or even so much as dissenting gestures why are they presenting? And if not presenting isn't an option why are they doing it live? I could understand a rule where you aren't allowed to interrupt a presentation or make rude gestures at the presenter, but I think most of this stuff could be easily covered by saying "be respectful to the presenter".

It doesn't say they don't want to hear dissenting opinions. It says disagreements should only be evident through the normal course of debate. Presumably that means not while someone else is speaking.

 

[wulf3n]

I remember when life on the Escapist wasn't a chore. I remember when there was more to it than feeding the outrage machine.

Can something purely optional every truly be a chore?

I mean it's not like the requirement for membership is that you have to read and contribute to every forum thread.

 

[Callate]

How about this: that's fucking stupid. You should not be in danger of being thrown out of a meeting for raising your hand. Much less when the "debate" in question is falsely accusing you, personally. Unless you're throwing a Nazi party salute, or something, such a rule is a recipe for abuse and stifling of opposition on a point of technicality.

It effectively creates an unsafe space for those who are targeted by those willing to take advantage of such an egregious misuse of the rules. And that's not defensible.

 

[Something Amyss]

It doesn't say they don't want to hear dissenting opinions. It says disagreements should only be evident through the normal course of debate. Presumably that means not while someone else is speaking.

In fact, most of the rules of conduct--agree or not--seem to come down to this. Letting people speak in turn.

 

[renegade7]

So someone had an argument with someone else at a meeting about Israeli foreign policy and someone complained about it.

Good heavens, what is the world coming to? >Clutches pearls.

Seriously though, why do I get the feeling that we're only seeing one side of this story? Because I cannot imagine that a a significant number of college students give enough of a damn about UK-Israel policy to conspire to ruin this girl's academic career over a poorly-timed hand raise.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

How about this: that's fucking stupid. You should not be in danger of being thrown out of a meeting for raising your hand.

The rule appears to be about not gesturing while others speak. When you get down to it, what does this actually take away? They can presumably express themselves afterwards.

Much less when the "debate" in question is falsely accusing you, personally.

When did this happen? The one complaining appears to be the one making personal accusations, calling the others antisemetic. Unless she herself is Israel personified I'm not sure what she was accused of, much less falsely accused of.

Unless you're throwing a Nazi party salute, or something, such a rule is a recipe for abuse and stifling of opposition on a point of technicality.

Which is easily defeated by some self-control apparently. Which suggests maybe the rule isn't made for the purpose of stifling the opposition.

It effectively creates an unsafe space for those who are targeted by those willing to take advantage of such an egregious misuse of the rules. And that's not defensible.

Or it's to make it easier on the person speaking not to have gesturing and whatnot while they speak. Perhaps this will cause problems for those unable to stop themselves from gesturing at speakers, but for some reason I'm not sympathetic to the plight of those who choose to gesture pointlessly while others speak.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Is this really how things are handled? Rather than the council of kids asking her kindly to please lower her hand or ask nicely for her to wait until their speech is over- they threaten to kick her out over raising one's hand? That's like ........................ the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time. What has come to our society man?

Next thing you know, the university will want to expel you for sneezing during a conference or something similar. Really pathetic.

It's not as if it was some surprise rule that I'm aware of. It looks like they already had a rule established. I'm not sure what's unreasonable about her expecting to follow it. Whether you agree with the rule or not, it's not exactly the kind of rule there is an urgent need to break.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Is this really how things are handled? Rather than the council of kids asking her kindly to please lower her hand or ask nicely for her to wait until their speech is over- they threaten to kick her out over raising one's hand? That's like ........................ the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time. What has come to our society man?

Next thing you know, the university will want to expel you for sneezing during a conference or something similar. Really pathetic.

It's not as if it was some surprise rule that I'm aware of. It looks like they already had a rule established. I'm not sure what's unreasonable about her expecting to follow it. Whether you agree with the rule or not, it's not exactly the kind of rule there is an urgent need to break.

True, but we're a society and as a society, we can't smack people with the ban hammer before handing out reminders.

Now do know I have no clue if she's broken this rule several times and the club decided enough was enough ... but if it was her first time, it was a harmless action that seems easy to defuse instead of letting it escalate into what was about to occur (her getting kicked out). I respect the rules, but rules are made so people don't hurt each other. I can't see how raising one's hand violates anyone's safe space or atmosphere for all that matters.

I mean, yes we can. Nor is it really clear whether she just politely raised her hand or is like throwing her hand in the air as some kind of interjection.

Presumably the rule is made to make it easier on the speaker to not have these distractions.

And personally with her characterization of things I'm guessing she was likely overly passionate in her demeanor.

 

[Jadak]

Let's be clear here, the 'safe space rule she violated is this:

This includes ?refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement?, or ?in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made?.

?Disagreements should only be evident through the normal course of debate,? it says.

Oh, so you can disagree, but only implicitly.

That's fucking ridiculous, end of story.

In general, I'm on the side of space spaces should not be a thing. Trigger warnings should not be a thing. That said, even if those things aren't retarded, prohibiting disagreement most certainly is.

 

[Something Amyss]

Is this really how things are handled? Rather than the council of kids asking her kindly to please lower her hand or ask nicely for her to wait until their speech is over- they threaten to kick her out over raising one's hand? That's like ........................ the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time. What has come to our society man?

Next thing you know, the university will want to expel you for sneezing during a conference or something similar. Really pathetic.

At this point, what we have is one person's side of the story, and given that the story is about them, they have every reason to attempt to paint themselves in a positive light and others in a negative light. This is bad journalism and quite likely a non-story.

It might be beneficial to not worry about the regulation of involuntary functions until after we know if there's another side to this story.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I remember when life on the Escapist wasn't a chore. I remember when there was more to it than feeding the outrage machine.

I miss those days.

When was that? I'm not being confrontational, but ever since I joined(and i visited for a few years before making an account) its been nothing but outrage, rage outs, raging and outings.