I gotta more general question: Is there a feeling (or not) that universities shouldn't have things like a Somali Club at all? And, that the concern isn't about "safe space" chillout rooms per se, but is really about these kinda clubs who tend to sponsor these kinda chillout rooms?

Well, can you source me a safe space policy that's something beyond this? I could've, for instance, joined the Muslim society, but I wouldn't have been allowed to go there week after week and talk about the Euthyohro or problem of evil for hours, that would've got me turfed out, and I think that's entirely fair.

"Social justice" has been rejected by especially libertarian conservative thought well before the internet arose. For instance, Hayek considered social justice (by which he meant distributive justice) a "mirage." Libertarians have always been suspicious of socially defined categories, it is no surprise that they would also be suspicious of social justice.

This is relevant of course because free speech is more a concern of libertarians than conservatives more generally.

You might consider that this association with social justice is not an accurate description of the goals, methods, or views of most people concerned with social justice, but is rather a politically useful caricature that pushes people who would otherwise agree with those goals and methods to oppose social justice more generally.

If this is important to you, why do you make everything a riddle? Don't you care about explaining things for the lurkers at all? How do you expect to draw people to your side when you won't flippin' explain what your side flippin' is?

You could have answered both those Qs with a simple "yes" or "no". WTF.

Instead what do we got. Well, as to the first Q: I'm going to guess your answer is "yes"... I guess because you mentioned "yes". So "Yes... you also have problems with spaces that excluded non-veterans". OK VG. The obvious follow up question is: what problems to you have with spaces that exclude non-veterans ??

As to the second Q: again, that wasn't the question. The question was who's stifling this 'free speech' of which you speak? Is it the governments? -or- is it something else entirely ??

I think the implications for having such a space does more harm than good.

For example you now have black students requesting to not share accommodation with white students, hundreds of students protesting and stopping white students getting to class because they were denied a POC only safe space. Also alot of these students are from middle to upper class backgrounds they probably have more in common with their white classmates than they do with POC or white people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I feel that polices like POC only safe spaces are really divisive and under the current climate will do race relations more harm than good.

Was also listening to a podcast with second wave feminist Christina Hoff Summers, whose opinion I respect alot, in which she was describing a debate she attended at a university where students had to be provided with a safe space after the debate in which they provided them with puppy dogs and play do afterwards. I dont think this is a healthy practice which we should not be encouraging from our next generation of adults.

No I have no problems with spaces that exclude non veterans for the simple reason when you take race out of the equation these segregated areas dont have the same negative effects. That should be pretty obvious to be honest.

In some cases governments have been involved in stifling free speech and in other cases it has been learning institutions such as university's and collages.

Slug, they're not divisive on campus though. They're only divisive to alt right people who don't attend college because they're too busy reading brietbart.

Slow down. I told you how safe spaces worked at my uni ~10 years ago, although nobody called them safe spaces, and I'm telling you I don't see any problem with that kind of set up. So I asked you to clarify what policies specifically you're talking about here. And you went into overdrive about segregated accommodation and such.

And what do I care about puppy dogs? I love puppies. If there had been a puppy and kittens society, I would've joined.

I am very far from alt right and doubt iv ever read more than a few headlines from brietbart.

The set up you described sounds fine.

The set up and implications of safe spaces these days and in particular ones segregated by color are very different given the strained race relations these days.

OK VG. Just to clarify, it's only racial exclusion you have a problem with, that and nothing else. Correct ??

This may be an USAian/UKian thingee. My understanding is that what UKians refer to as "government" us USAians call "administration". Most unis here are public, which is part-n-parcel with the regime. The same rules apply. Also, of course, our 1stA is particular to us proud USAians. This all said...

In the US, you don't generally have 1stA rights at private universities. The university may regulate speech much as they please. Just like CPAC may invite or 'deplatform' speakers at their whim. In ordinary American usage, these are not called attacks on "free speech".

When you say "free speech", does it align with the above kinda meaning?

Who really is king of a safe hill?

Cool, so we're agreed that some safe spaces for different groups are fine, and that puppies and kittens are awesome. So can I get an example of a safe space policy that you don't agree with? One of the ones that clearly, in your view, goes too far and is damaging. My problem with dealing in the abstract here is that of course we can conceive of bad policies, the s trivial. But you're talking about the real world, right?

Can an anti-SJW finish complete this statement by substituting for the X:

I want to do X, but I can't because of PC.

I've asked this quite a few times and I never get an answer.

Read this for starters:
http://sjdspace.sagepub.com/?p=1722

I think FoldnDark originally linked it in another thread months ago.

I'm not sure Haidt answers the question, at least not clearly.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical example:

Let´s take a researcher, who conducts a study, which is loosely
related to one of the topics the SJWs hold dear (let´s say something
related to migration or minorities). After months he finishes
his study and is surprised by the politically incorrect results. After double- and
triplechecking the used method and his whole research paradigm, he
still has the same results.

Now he is in a huge predicament, because he literally can´t publish the study in this current form:
-it likely won´t get through peer review (because the peer reviewer is faced with the same quandary and won´t attach his name to a study of this kind)
-even if it did, it likely wouldn´t get published because the journal is also faced with the same quandary
-even if some journal would publish it, it would be academic suicide for the researcher, because he would be facing public outrage, and a witchhunt from the SJWs and would be ostracized from the science community
-he also would have serious problems in getting funding for future research


Look what happened to Tim Hunt, for merely making a joke at a formal dinner.
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...girls-comments

And this guy, was a nobel prize laureate, who is happily married for more than 2 decades.
But somehow the media witchhunt characterized him as a misogynist even though his own wife described him as loving and kind.
(Does anyone remember Donald Trump?)

Now get back to my hypothecial scenario, and imagine the media crusade the researcher would have to face for not making a joke, but releasing a controversial study.

Universities are transforming into echo chambers due to the reasons above, because the publishing of certain results will simply result in career suicide.

And many of the researchers, who still would take the risk, can´t do it, because they have to provide for their families and therefore can´t risk the existence of their loved ones in the pursuit of truth.

The rise of SJWs and the power of social media are two main ingredients in the recipe, which turns even the most prestigious universities into echo chambers.

if this is so prevalent why are you using hypothetical examples?

Do you think being happily married precludes someone from being a sexist? He may have intended to be funny but the article goes on to say

Because the researcher in my scenario buries his work or alters the results due to the reasons outlined above. It should be obvious, why it is difficult to find examples for this. Because every active researcher is strongly disincentivized to speak out about this.

What are the reasons that universities are increasingly becoming echo chambers in your opinion? Or do you disagree with that general statement as well?

No, I don´t think being happily married precludes someone from being a sexist. But it surely does increase the probability of viewing women favorably.

Regarding the Tim Hunt accident I found two additional sources, which indicate that his dismissal was wrong and what a witchhunt he faced:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/article4501473.ece
http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/2...the-real-story

Just one part of the 2nd article:
If that is true, that does´t really fit the quote you brought up.

I concede that I´m not sure how reliable these sources are, but they surely paint a very different picture of the Tim Hunt incident.

What's the world coming to when an old man can't even make misogynistic remarks at a conference, defend them, and not hold on to a job?

But that doesn't happen, what happens is some academic does some "research" in a field he's not at all known for; like a physical education prof doing research on immigrant crime statistics, and when the quality of his research turns out to be awful people then make the assumption he was biased. I asked Lord this and he wouldn't answer, how about you give it a shot: how ****ty does published academic research have to be before people can protest it?

And just how much racist, bigoted, misogynistic research findings are actually out there not being published do you think?

Too late, Kerowo, we've hit the conspiracy stage of affairs where there's surely great research out there but the system hides it from us.

Yeah, this sounds like exactly what SJW's don't do in the real world but "could" do in the fabulous world where people's horrible views of minorities is backed up with "science!"

Again, you are reframing my argument.

Making a misogynistic statement at conference would be worthy of comdenation.

However this is not what happened:
Do you really think a Korean Womean would have expressed that she was impressed by his warm speech, if it would have been truly misogynistic?
She never would have used the word "warm" if that would have been the case.

@kerowo
I obviously have no number on the amount of research that doesn´t get published due to the outlined reasons. But I do notice a big increase in groupthink and universities increasingly becoming like echo chambers.
Juan valdez has posted videos of several professors (from Canada I think?), who recognize a similar development.

Will I suffer the fate of Cassandra ?