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

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Thats only an excerpt. By putting it with hand gestures and the like it looks to me like it means while the other is speaking and that disagreement should then come out in the counterpoint, in the normal course of debate. It implies to me that the point is to minimize disagreement outside the normal course of debate.

 

[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.

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.

I should clarify both of my points. By class room environment, I intended to say learning environment, such as a school. If one wishes to go out in the big bad world and debate in front of the gathered masses, dealing with crowd hostility is something one must learn. At a college, it's not useful to have people acting obnoxiously in a crowd when people are debating for learning or similar purposes. Such distractions add nothing.

As to my second point, even if one believes that someone is presenting arguments they feel are problematic, calling the arguments or the person themselves racist/sexist isn't useful, it's merely an accusation. It may even be true but it has no bearing or weight in a debate. For instance, one might claim that allowing businesses to discriminate against people for whatever reason they choose is perfectly fine and no legal restrictions on this discrimination should exist. One might interpret this assertion as overtly or covertly racist in intent and may even be right in doing so, but responding to that by calling the person racist isn't an argument, it's a fallacy. One might criticize Israel and its national policies without being an anti-semite just as one might argue that freedom of association should trump anyone's right to not be discriminated against based on their race and not be a racist. In both cases though, the accusations of anti-semite/racism are sure to follow, and fast, without addressing any point the person made.

I don't really see a reason to distrust anyone who uses the term, "hard left" anymore than someone who says, "far right." Now if they follow such terms with a bunch of baseless, ill-considered rhetoric, that will certainly get me rolling my eyes, but it's not as if there aren't hard-liners on both sides. I admire your bit of introspection at the end there; I think anyone who takes a moment to consider whether they are acting appropriately when hearing phrases that tend to set off their "bullshit" meter is doing something really good for themselves, others and debate in general. Looking past language that sets us off to dig into the arguments at hand and their supporting evidence is laudable. I hope that praise doesn't come off as condescending either, my admiration of your statement is sincere.

 

[BytByte]

Ahhhh, college, the greatest place of unintentional comedy outside the campaign trail.

I'm sure everyone 5 or 10 years down the road will look back on this incident and laugh.

Or not, I'm still laughing regardless

 

[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.

I should clarify both of my points. By class room environment, I intended to say learning environment, such as a school. If one wishes to go out in the big bad world and debate in front of the gathered masses, dealing with crowd hostility is something one must learn. At a college, it's not useful to have people acting obnoxiously in a crowd when people are debating for learning or similar purposes. Such distractions add nothing.

Yeah, but it was a student council meeting. Not just a learning environment. I mean I don't begrudge them their rule, just clarifying that I don't think it's just for learning in this case.

As to my second point, even if one believes that someone is presenting arguments they feel are problematic, calling the arguments or the person themselves racist/sexist isn't useful, it's merely an accusation. It may even be true but it has no bearing or weight in a debate. For instance, one might claim that allowing businesses to discriminate against people for whatever reason they choose is perfectly fine and no legal restrictions on this discrimination should exist. One might interpret this assertion as overtly or covertly racist in intent and may even be right in doing so, but responding to that by calling the person racist isn't an argument, it's a fallacy. One might criticize Israel and its national policies without being an anti-semite just as one might argue that freedom of association should trump anyone's right to not be discriminated against based on their race and not be a racist. In both cases though, the accusations of anti-semite/racism are sure to follow, and fast, without addressing any point the person made.

Oh yes, not particularly useful in an argument. I was taking the accusations as separate, not as the argument itself in this instance.

I don't really see a reason to distrust anyone who uses the term, "hard left" anymore than someone who says, "far right." Now if they follow such terms with a bunch of baseless, ill-considered rhetoric, that will certainly get me rolling my eyes, but it's not as if there aren't hard-liners on both sides. I admire your bit of introspection at the end there; I think anyone who takes a moment to consider whether they are acting appropriately when hearing phrases that tend to set off their "bullshit" meter is doing something really good for themselves, others and debate in general. Looking past language that sets us off to dig into the arguments at hand and their supporting evidence is laudable. I hope that praise doesn't come off as condescending either, my admiration of your statement is sincere.

Thanks, I know I can be quick to judge so had to reign myself in a bit there and consider. I mean, I'm skeptical of her still, but I don't want to be too quick to dismiss. I figure warning signs are fine to be skeptical, but that just means I'm gonna be a bit more aware when looking over the details. Not that there are many in this instance.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

To be fair, much of the 'Old Guard' pushed out most of the more fun-loving, happy-go-lucky users. And, by proxy, the same sort of conversations. When the forums are flooded by an unending torrent of threads like, "Why do people like this game? People are stupid for liking it.", it doesn't take long for posters to want to move on.

In fact, I've begun wondering why I even stay here. It's gone from me being reviled by some posters for simply enjoying the games I enjoyed[footnote]I was practically a villain for enjoying games like Half-Life and Call of Duty.[/footnote] to being reviled for not instantly supporting every opinion ever and not aggressively attacking anyone who disagrees with those opinions. The implications have gone from, "You're a tasteless philistine for liking that game." to "You're a racist/sexist/SJW for not agreeing with my opinion."

At this point, I feel the myriad of content-creator layoffs only benefited those affected. They managed to escape the sinking ship.

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

 

[BrawlMan]

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.

To be fair, much of the 'Old Guard' pushed out most of the more fun-loving, happy-go-lucky users. And, by proxy, the same sort of conversations. When the forums are flooded by an unending torrent of threads like, "Why do people like this game? People are stupid for liking it.", it doesn't take long for posters to want to move on.

In fact, I've begun wondering why I even stay here. It's gone from me being reviled by some posters for simply enjoying the games I enjoyed[footnote]I was practically a villain for enjoying games like Half-Life and Call of Duty.[/footnote] to being reviled for not instantly supporting every opinion ever and not aggressively attacking anyone who disagrees with those opinions. The implications have gone from, "You're a tasteless philistine for liking that game." to "You're a racist/sexist/SJW for not agreeing with my opinion."

At this point, I feel the myriad of content-creator layoffs only benefited those affected. They managed to escape the sinking ship.

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

I don't see the difference, you're still getting people who hate you for having an opinion different from yours. Yes, the topics are barley relevant to gaming, but I remember finding users on these forums calling others racist for liking Resident Evil 5. So, it was always there, just in "smaller" numbers.

P.S - Also, I remember when Nintendo fans exploded on Yahtzee for not liking Brawl. And then the Mailbag showdown happened...


Safe spaces are stupid and pointless. Take it away South Park.

Spoiler: My Safe Space

 

[omega 616]

Last year, a group of leading academics wrote to the Telegraph warning that British universities were becoming too politically correct and stifling free speech by banning anything that causes offence to others.

They should throw me in there, I'd have people crying! Only a select few occasions call for "a safe space" abuse victims are number one! "safe space" shouldn't be about not having to worry about being PC, we should be teaching people to stand up for themselves, not to cower in "safe spaces" ... just breeding a generation of victims.

Not everybody is going to be up for being totally PC, I know I'm not! Coming out with all these crazy pronouns and cis this and gender fluid that. So instead of trying to force this change, how about growing a spine.

People like this have seen they are getting stuff, such as gay marriage (which is great) but now they are trying to grab that inch they have been given and run a mile with it. You can't litigate against people being a dick to you.

Should all watch this ...

 

[Something Amyss]

there's probably way more to it so i'm going to stay tuned until further details are delivered unless that's all we're getting than ... I have no follow up lol.

I suspect this is the most we'll get. IT scratches the itch of "PC GONE MAD!" and "SAFE SPACES ARE EVIL PLACES!" and I doubt it was really intended to be much more.

 

[Vigormortis]

I don't see the difference, you're still getting people who hate you for having an opinion different from yours. Yes, the topics are barley relevant to gaming, but I remember finding users on these forums calling others racist for liking Resident Evil 5. So, it was always there, just in "smaller" numbers.

The difference is escalation. The animosity has only grown on this site and its associated community. I wasn't implying it was worse back then. I was saying most of the more pleasant members were driven out long ago. Since then, that animosity has festered, being emboldened by the recent influx of 'hot button controversies'.

When most of what you have left are people who love to aggressively argue, all you're going to see are arguments.

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't see the difference, you're still getting people who hate you for having an opinion different from yours. Yes, the topics are barley relevant to gaming, but I remember finding users on these forums calling others racist for liking Resident Evil 5. So, it was always there, just in "smaller" numbers.

The difference is escalation. The animosity has only grown on this site and its associated community. I wasn't implying it was worse back then. I was saying most of the more pleasant members were driven out long ago. Since then, that animosity has festered, being emboldened by the recent influx of 'hot button controversies'.

When most of what you have left are people who love to aggressively argue, all you're going to see are arguments.

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).

 

[Falling_v1legacy]

I don't see the difference, you're still getting people who hate you for having an opinion different from yours. Yes, the topics are barley relevant to gaming, but I remember finding users on these forums calling others racist for liking Resident Evil 5. So, it was always there, just in "smaller" numbers.

The difference is escalation. The animosity has only grown on this site and its associated community. I wasn't implying it was worse back then. I was saying most of the more pleasant members were driven out long ago. Since then, that animosity has festered, being emboldened by the recent influx of 'hot button controversies'.

When most of what you have left are people who love to aggressively argue, all you're going to see are arguments.

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 month now, but so far topics on the forums are pretty friendly or least neutral for the most part. You are always going to have drama on forums, the best you can don is ignore it and make something positive. Or just go plain random or silly (the good kind).

I was actually trying to think back to whether Escapist was better or worse or the same compared to 7 or 8 years ago or even 5... but I was actually having troubles remembering if I paid much attention to the forums back then versus just the articles and the comments people wrote on them.

Using the Wayback Time Machine I found, rather unhelpfully, that it doesn't show what the top forum posts were for some reason and so I was forced to search the Game subforum specifically. I came to no conclusion, but it got me thinking... I think a large part of my view of what the Escapist community is like and what they are all about is shaped by the topics that show up in that little box. And for the last couple years there have been some depressingly similar antagonistic fighting topics again and again and again. As a portal into the Escapist community, it's helpful to see what the hottest topics are... on the other hand, it's one of the few uncurated content pieces on the front page. It guarantees that a hot topic will have its fires stoked and as there is limited space a couple hot button issues can dominate the Escapist front page for weeks on end with similar type topics. For me at least, those four little slots really shaped my perception of Escapist without even realizing it.

 

[Strazdas]

What a surreal story, and here i would expect those students that voted to kick her out over shaking her head should be the ones being punished. Then again perhaps you shouldn't punish the stupid, its not like it cures them.

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.

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

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 rules flat out states that disagreeing is not permitted, so yes, they are made for the sole purpose of stuffling the opposition.

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.

If you are in colledge and cannot speak while somone in the audience shakes his head perhaps you shouldnt speak at all. In fact, one of the things colledges are supposed to teach you is to present your arguments fairly regardless of reaction of the audience. What is happening here is the direct opposite of what colledges are supposed to do.

 

[sanquin]

Just another article showing that the feminist movement has started to cannibalize itself. People outside of their movement are starting to no longer put up with their shit, so the only ones left to attack are the people in the movement itself. I wonder how long it will take for extremist feminism to be divided so much that you might as well say feminism as a movement has disbanded.

If I was in that situation, and during that time she spoke but others started shaking their heads, I would have stopped giving my argument and gone "Okay, those people are now shaking their heads. A gesture of disagreement. Since apparently this is grounds for a vote for expulsion, I now want to hold a vote to have those people removed." See how they like it when they're the ones on the receiving end.

And as said above, if a simple gesture of disagreement is enough to prevent you from speaking then you shouldn't be speaking at all. College is supposed to prepare you for adult life. But these snowflakes will be so tender and easily 'triggered' that they will become a social pariah if they continue like that...

 

[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?

 

[FalloutJack]

I have no concept of what a safe space is. I remember what personal space is, aaand that's all I got for this. WTF, mate?

 

[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.

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

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.

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 rules flat out states that disagreeing is not permitted, so yes, they are made for the sole purpose of stuffling the opposition.

No, it doesn't. It says it should appear in the normal course of debate.

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.

If you are in colledge and cannot speak while somone in the audience shakes his head perhaps you shouldnt speak at all. In fact, one of the things colledges are supposed to teach you is to present your arguments fairly regardless of reaction of the audience. What is happening here is the direct opposite of what colledges are supposed to do.

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.