Safe spaces for everyone?

Well I thought we were talking about the usage of the word "snowflake" (and, tangentially, stabbings), but now you're talking about Nazis again?
 
If that's what it takes...

Better have 100 people stabbed to wake a million up so that they won't.
Then lead by example and get stabbed to prove your point ?
Or is it a good way only when it's directed against others ?
 
Well I thought we were talking about the usage of the word "snowflake" (and, tangentially, stabbings), but now you're talking about Nazis again?

Way to miss the point, but, hey, I'm not surprised.

Then lead by example and get stabbed to prove your point ?

Because of this. There would be no sympathy from you.
 
Way to miss the point, but, hey, I'm not surprised.

I think it's fair for people to "miss" your point if you decide to just interject and start talking about something else.
 
It's certainly easier when you don't get a reference to treat it as though it was talking about something else entirely, sure.
 
I think we're confusing "safe spaces" with excluding controversial figures from speaking at universities. At least my understanding of a safe space is a place where a minority can escape from harassment or be themselves. Like a gay guy is being harassed on the street, he can go into a cafe designated as a safe space and the staff at least will help protect him.

That's my understanding anyway and if that's the case, context really is a difficult concept for many people.

Also I'm glad Chris Patten found something to do with his time after being the Hong Kong Governor
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/87...e-spaces-chris-patten-fundamentally-offensive

The Chancellor of Oxford University nails it when he calls safe spaces what they are.
That might be more meaningful coming from an educator and not a semi-retired politician, occupying a ceremonial role within the university. The guy's background is mostly in foreign affairs; he has no more authority on the topic than a blind dog, expect that he happened to be the preferred choice of the less than nine thousand Oxford graduates who could be bothered to vote him into a lifetime office.
 
Last edited:
Any speech that disagrees is dissent? That's awfully simplistic.
 
Any speech that disagrees is dissent? That's awfully simplistic.

then dont make it so simple

It's super ironic that he apparently banned safe spaces from campus because they are...offensive. Sounds like he wants a safe space from safe spaces

I'm not sure whether to find this utter lack of self-awareness on his (and, evidently, your) part hilarious, or tragic.

wouldn't a safe space from safe spaces be called free speech?
 
There's no irony in allowing free discussion because you find the idea of restricting it to be unpalatable. You're just playing semantic games by applying the label "offensive" to each thing so that you can create a false equivalency.
 
Bro, I didn't apply that label.

That is a direct quote from the article supplied by Oerdin:

THE chancellor of Oxford University has branded the practice of no-platforming and campus safe spaces “fundamentally offensive”.
 
So the fundamentally offended have been labeled fundamentally offensive? LOL.
 
Bro, I didn't apply that label.

That is a direct quote from the article supplied by Oerdin:

Okay, then you're playing semantic games by not looking further than the word used and pretending it's referring to the same thing twice. "Offensive" practices are not the same as "offensive" speech and you know this.
 
Lets be clear here - safe spaces are not enforced by law. Its a social convention - politeness if you will.

So basically y'all are a bunch of dudes mad as heck that you have the hypothetical right to disrupt a social space, but that you don't have explicit wide social endorsement to do so.

In fact, some of you have regularly complained about SJW and antifa protest of (alt?)right wing rallies and events, while protest is typically regarded as a political right.
 
Back
Top Bottom