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

[mduncan50]

I am feeling so sexy and free. Now where the hell are my Soho city rent boys.

How *beep*ing dare she do that? She's opposing an opinion silently and causing choas and mayhem. The triggers I feel. Triggers!!! TRIGGGGGGERED!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

Errr... last time I did a similar thread like this, things blew up. Good thing for me, I have a fetish for chaos and mayhem. Somebody stop me!!

But really, really? This is just getting a tad bit silly now. I mean, yeah, ban who you want from speaking, but to accuse someone of violating safe spaces but doing a hand gesture, well body gesture, then... then are people so afraid of opposing opinion or is their more to this, again. I read the article further and some of the members in the council meeting, because she was shaking her head. ANARCHY!!

Is this getting out of hand or is everything still in perfect order in Universities. Well, you know, University is the be all and end all of life and death.

Deny it and you will be crushed. Defy it and you will be erased from history.

I don't see the issue. She broke the rules as they were set up for the Student Council meetings, and even then was not punished for it. Is it a stupid rule? Sure. But it's one that she knew about and agreed to.

 

[Vigormortis]

I can see where you are coming from; especially if this were between 2012 and 2013. You had Anita What's-Her-Face, Zoe Quinn, Gamegate/Anti-Gamergate, and Movie Bob preaching is crap. None of the that shit mattered to me. Right around late 2014, most of that stuff seemed to drop. I've only been on this board for about a month now, but so far topics on the forums are pretty friendly or at least neutral for the most part. You are always going to have drama on forums, the best you can do is ignore it and make something positive. Or just go plain random or silly (the good kind).

Compared to how it was, it's primarily negative nowadays. Negative, and mostly empty. The boards were a LOT more active 3+ years ago. But now, the only active discussions are people arguing and bickering back and forth about the latest 'nontroversy'.

This place is only a few steps away from becoming the new haven for Twitter-level arguments.

 

[kris40k]

So a rule about having to sit still (you know, like an adult) while other people are speaking is insane now?

The rule is not about having to sit still. You can make motions of agreement all you want. Nod your head yes, shout "Amen!", etc. Only motions of disagreement are barred. Shake you head "No" and they can bounce you. The rule as written is about preventing showing disagreement.

The rule flat out states that disagreement should be shown through the normal course of debate, as in, you can express your disagreement when it's your turn to speak, not just whenever you want. If not being allowed to express your disagreement whenever you want regardless of whether someone else is speaking is "stifling the opposition" than the opposition deserves it, because they seem like an immensely rude person for wanting to interrupt other people.

Someone shaking their head "no" while another person speaks is not interrupting. Shouting "Bullshit!" certainly would be. The rule is ridiculous, and they should be ridiculed for it.

And if you're in college and cannot sit still for a few minutes while someone you disagree with speaks perhaps you shouldn't... listen at all--wow that really fell apart at the end. I don't know where you're getting your idea about colleges, but they are not designed to teach you to speak in front of people who feel the need to make overt gestures at you while you speak.

Public speaking is generally a requirement of most[footnote]I say most because I have never seen one that does not include a required public speaking or speech course, however that does not preclude that one does not exist[/footnote] degree programs as part of the general education. I'm in IT and had to take a Public Speaking course. Yes, college is about learning how to speak with people that may shake their head "no" at you.

 

[Callate]

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.

The article says that the rule regards

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

Further:

According to EUSA safe space rules, only gestures that indicate agreement are "permissible", and then only as long as "these gestures are generally understood and not used in an intimidating manner".

If only gestures of disagreement are prohibited, creating an atmosphere in which one side gets gestures of approval and the other does not is scarcely less troublesome than what the rule's creators presumably intended.

The subject also claims she was warned of a possible complaint for shaking her head; if her claims that others shaking their heads was ignored is true, the rules are being enforced unevenly.

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.

Ms Wilson said she raised her arms in disagreement after being accused by another speaker of failing to respond to an open letter, despite in fact having made efforts to contact the letter's authors.

A speaker specifically accused Wilson of failing to respond to an open letter. I don't know the context, but my suspicion was it was to imply that either she didn't care about the issue enough to respond at the time or had had opportunity to address the question at a more appropriate time but had failed to do so, the matter was a fait accompli, and she should stop complaining.

There's no evidence in the article that Wilson accused anyone, including those backing the Israel boycott, of anything. What she said, apparently, was that an Israel boycott created an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism appeared to be acceptable. Not that those who backed it were anti-Semitic, nor that fostering such an atmosphere was their intention.

Whether that claim is accurate is a debatable point- but that is the point, that the matter should be debated rather than using rules-lawyering to prevent one side from being present at all.

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

The purpose of the rule is irrelevant if that's how it's effectively being used, especially if a compelling case can't be made that stifling the behavior the rule might have been intended to prevent is more important than preventing the rule from being used to quell legitimate dissent.

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.

As noted, it doesn't even forbid gesturing during speaking; only gesturing that someone, on an incredibly vague basis, decides to interpret as negative. At which point it can bring everything to a halt on something as simple as shaking one's head to spotlight persons who have the audacity to present a less popular viewpoint- in, perversely, a negative context.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

The article says that the rule is regards

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

Yes. And that's a sentence fragment.

By context it looks to me like 'being made' could mean during the time at which they are being made. As in currently being made.

Further:

According to EUSA safe space rules, only gestures that indicate agreement are "permissible", and then only as long as "these gestures are generally understood and not used in an intimidating manner".

If only gestures of disagreement are prohibited, creating an atmosphere in which one side gets gestures of approval and the other does not is scarcely less troublesome than what the rule's creators presumably intended.

How so? I'm doubtful that lack of approval is going to be the same as disapproval.

The subject also claims she was warned of a possible complaint for shaking her head; if her claims that others shaking their heads was ignored is true, the rules are being enforced unevenly.

Maybe. Maybe her perception is a bit skewed here.

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.

Ms Wilson said she raised her arms in disagreement after being accused by another speaker of failing to respond to an open letter, despite in fact having made efforts to contact the letter?s authors.

A student specifically accused Wilson of failing to respond to an open letter. I don't know the context, but my suspicion was to imply that either she didn't care about the issue enough to respond at the time or had had opportunity to address the question at a more appropriate time but had failed to do so, the matter was a fait accompli, and she should stop complaining.

Ah yes I wasn't thinking of it as an accusation.

She could address that when it's her time to speak.

There's no evidence in the article that Wilson accused anyone, including those backing the Israel boycott, of anything. What she said, apparently, was that an Israel boycott created an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism appeared to be acceptable. Not that those who backed it were anti-Semitic, nor that fostering such an atmosphere was their intention.

I think that's dicing it really thin.

Whether that claim is accurate is a debatable point- but that is the point, that the matter should be debated rather than using rules-lawyering to prevent one side from being present at all.

It seems simple enough to just not raise your hand. Not seeing her great difficulty here.

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

The purpose of the rule is irrelevant if that's how it's effectively being used, especially if a compelling case can't be made that stifling the behavior the rule might have been intended to prevent is more important than preventing the rule from being used to quell legitimate dissent.

I don't think that legitimate dissent has such a great self control problem that it has any real conflict here. It sounds like she was either the only one at all against it or the only one who couldn't control herself.

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.

As noted, it doesn't even forbid gesturing during speaking; only gesturing that someone, on an incredibly vague basis, decides to interpret as negative. At which point it can bring everything to a halt on something as simple as shaking one's head to spotlight persons who have the audacity to present a less popular viewpoint- in, perversely, a negative context.

Alright. The gesturing allowed doesn't sound disruptive nor does it sound like it has opportunity to detract.

 

[kris40k]

Never had to take a public speaking course nor has anyone else currently attending my university who isn't in a program like "Communication." Now we certainly had to speak in front of people as part of some of our classes, but this was not as some sort of planned learning exercise where we learn how to deal with an audience that gestures of disagreement towards you; it was generally in front of an audience that knew nothing about your topic because they were fellow students and did a different project.

I'll give you that point, that my info is probably well out of date. Just randomly decided to grab a nearby Uni to where I live now and a random STEM degree, in this case a BS in Chemistry [https://blogs.uoregon.edu/chemistry/files/2015/03/ChemistryDegreeAdvPkt_Mar2015-o4m1ra.pdf] and it looks like instead of requiring specific base courses in areas such as Communication courses like public speaking, they are requiring a number of credits in "Arts & Letters" and "Social Sciences" instead. Bit more freedom for the student to choose but I'm certain that public speaking is still an option under that program. But yes, it would be possible for a student to slip through now without learning how to speak to groups without breaking down into a fetal position when someone disagrees with them.

 

[sky14kemea]

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.

Don't worry, it looks to me like life on the Escapist is gurgling its way to a messy climax.

Perhaps it's time this place went the way of Old Yeller....

C'mon guys, we're not dead yet! There's still life in this old boat.

Spoiler

 

[Strazdas]

It takes away sanity. as in it is literally insane to have such rules.

So a rule about having to sit still (you know, like an adult) while other people are speaking is insane now?

A rule about not being able to shake your head when you are listening to somone else speak is indeed insane.

The rule flat out states that disagreement should be shown through the normal course of debate, as in, you can express your disagreement when it's your turn to speak, not just whenever you want. If not being allowed to express your disagreement whenever you want regardless of whether someone else is speaking is "stifling the opposition" than the opposition deserves it, because they seem like an immensely rude person for wanting to interrupt other people.

If shaking my head somehow disturbs the speaker then that person shouldnt have been allowed to speak to begin with. Shaking your head is not stiffling the opposition, its simple body language that is often invoulantary and most often NOONE NOTICES.

And if you're in college and cannot sit still for a few minutes while someone you disagree with speaks perhaps you shouldn't... listen at all--wow that really fell apart at the end. I don't know where you're getting your idea about colleges, but they are not designed to teach you to speak in front of people who feel the need to make overt gestures at you while you speak.

Granted, my personal experience is more with Universities than Colledges, but in US it seems that they became interchangable. No, you should not become a vegetable just because someone else speaks, all you have to do is not to disrupt the speech. Simply shaking your head will not disrupt the speech of any speaker above 5 years old. And yes, colledges are supposed to teach you to present your ideas publicly among other things. if your does not its a failure on their part.

So you concede there is nothing it actually takes away? I mean if you must resort to such hyperbole presumably you don't have an actual response?

I mean you're literally wrong here in the definition of insanity. If you only have hyperbole please don't bother to reply. I'd prefer a rational discussion and hearing 'it takes away sanity' isn't conducive to that.

If you think literally driving people insane is nothing well then...

But seriously, this rule pretty much denies people their basic human rights, how the fuck can you even start to defend it?

This is a meeting. It is not a competition and basic decorum can be expected. There is no audience so whatever you think you know isn't applicable.

This is a public speech done in a meeting. It does not have to be a competition to have speeches. Everyone in the meeting is the audience. This is fully applicable.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...See, I'm of two minds with this.

On one hand, this report is incredibly one-sided and doesn't really go into many details, painting her opposition in a negative light without much weight backing that up.

On the other hand, as someone who has dealt with Student politics far, far more often then he'd have preferred... I can totally believe a bunch of people abusing an idea in a shitty attempt to throw someone out they don't like. It's just something so terribly stupid that it fits the actions of a student politician so well. So, so well.

Though, to shut down all the people going 'SAFE SPACES ARE EVIL AND CENSORING', This... isn't a sign that Safe Spaces are evil and censoring. It's a sign of shitty student politicians being shitty student politicians. Granted, it's in their nature to be shitty since they're student politicians (who are objectively the worst), but still, the point stands. Someone abusing a concept doesn't make that concept 'wrong' and 'bad', it just means they're a piece of shit.

...of course, that's all context, and if this thread's desire is to generate outrage over a non-issue, then I won't let that stop anyone. Can't get good and pissed off at something that doesn't affect you if you pay attention to the context, right?

I dunno, I'm pretty sure American Republican politicians have student politicians beat as being the worst. I mean, I'd consider shutting down the government and threatening to crash the global economy if they don't get their way to be quite a few levels above and beyond trying to throw someone out they don't like...

Admittedly I'm coming from an Australian perspective, since here all our politicians tend to start their careers as Student politicians, and just reveal more of their shitty nature as they get given more power by their buddies (our system is totally fucked between both major parties). So 'Student Politicians are objectively the worst' is still a condemnation of the major politicians, since they don't change over their careers.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Jesus... if those are the rules, why the hell would you want to be in there?

 

[Superbeast]

There's no evidence in the article that Wilson accused anyone, including those backing the Israel boycott, of anything. What she said, apparently, was that an Israel boycott created an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism appeared to be acceptable. Not that those who backed it were anti-Semitic, nor that fostering such an atmosphere was their intention.

To add to what Secondhand Revenant has already said, there may be some evidence of that, from Wilson's own article on these events (linked in the Telegraph article from the OP:

The main speeches naturally focused on injustices faced by Palestinian people, but did this by attacking Israel?s economy and society, and by extension, the people of Israel, rather than the government. The motion also delegitimises Israel?s fundamental right to exist by calling it the ?declared State of Israel,? an anti-Semitic statement by nature.

http://www.studentnewspaper.org/bds-promotes-anti-semitism-and-is-harmful-to-jewish-students/

Without the full transcript of her speeches it is hard to say for certain, but the bolded are her inferences rather than statements made by her opponents. Inferring that someone is attacking the people if Israel and accusing them of making anti-Semitic statements are indeed accusations that people backing the boycott are anti-Semitic.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

So you concede there is nothing it actually takes away? I mean if you must resort to such hyperbole presumably you don't have an actual response?

I mean you're literally wrong here in the definition of insanity. If you only have hyperbole please don't bother to reply. I'd prefer a rational discussion and hearing 'it takes away sanity' isn't conducive to that.

If you think literally driving people insane is nothing well then...

But seriously, this rule pretty much denies people their basic human rights, how the fuck can you even start to defend it?

Maybe because no one has given a real problem with it.

So far you've given me hyperbole about sanity and are now claiming it denies human rights without any elaboration on what kind of human rights are denied here.

This is a meeting. It is not a competition and basic decorum can be expected. There is no audience so whatever you think you know isn't applicable.

This is a public speech done in a meeting. It does not have to be a competition to have speeches. Everyone in the meeting is the audience. This is fully applicable.

They are all participants and can be held to higher standards than an audience of viewers. You're conflating what applies to an audience of viewers with other participants by trying to call the other participants the audience.

 

[Vigormortis]

C'mon guys, we're not dead yet! There's still life in this old boat.

Spoiler: Did you know AMC has created a documentary about the Good Ship Escapist?

I hear it's quite informative. Really paints an accurate image of the community.

 

[Barbas]

Thread locked at OP's request.