poor me. The (perceived) post content may not be sufficient. Maybe at least consider it's in part down to really enjoying mocking and not liking people?

Uh, it's the idea of ever expanding safe spaces where everyone is free from feeling uncomfortable that's being mocked by the world. And everyone is getting a hearty laugh out of SJWs who have zero convictions, making bs up about people they hate while sitting in their underwear on social media screaming at anyone who utters the hive mind microaggression du jour. Talk about a religion, lol.

Uh, yeah. I general, people mock others because they enjoy mocking others.

Many people don't see this quite the same way you do. For example, Glenn Greenwald and Obama both disagree with your viewpoints.

Anyways, Mason and the Sklanskies making rules on what can be posted to their commercial website don't restrict your free speech. You remain free to call black people racial slurs, spread homophobic propaganda (although other commercial websites, like Glenn Greenwald's, have the right to restrict your ability to do so on their site), and denigrate your rape victims. Your views are, of course, abhorrent, but we have free speech in this country. The government will not prevent you from expressing those thoughts (although, again, certain venues and commercial websites might do so)

I may have to get Kerowo to parse that sentence for me.

Foldn has pretzeled himself into a position where literally all criticism of his views can be characterized as "cognitive dissonance" and taken as proof that he's right.

"Y'all are resistant to my hard truths about safe spaces because you're trapped inside your own safe space!" is just a slightly more sophisticated version of "Deep down you guys all know I'm right but you refuse to admit it".

I mean, I have had people incorrectly ascribe opinions to me so that they can argue against them before, but in those cases, at least the false opinions are cogent. You are attempting to argue against incomprehensible ideas of your own design. It's like you are having a conversation in another dimension.

It occurs to me that my religion comment may read like an insult to you (and religion). I seriously did not mean it that way. I really think it may help you make some sense of this world and develop a sense of meaning and purpose.

Nah, there's been little criticism of my views ITT, mostly just angry emotional screeching at some bigotted straw man created in the hive mind. The only person willing to actually criticize my views has admitted he disagrees with Obama, Greenwald, etc. Not sure why that's so hard for everyone else.

You are right. I dont know why its so difficult to admit Greenwald disagrees with you. You were wrong, no biggie.

I assume you're referring to me.

Uh... I agree with your views. Again, we are both on the pro-censorship side, remember? We both wanna make the phrase "you're a r-word" against the rules here in Alta Politards. What I've been saying is that I strongly disagree with your tactics. I never said I agreed or disagreed with anything Obama said... I said I don't care what he says. I never mentioned Greenwald at all.

This is surely a dumb question, but Google is failing me.

Do safe spaces look different on public vs private campuses? Are there physically designated areas or are they just concepts that frame all classroom conversations at schools which embrace 'safe spaces'?

If they are physically designated areas on campuses, do schools enforce them or are they just generally accepted/respected by the community?

FoldN, do you accept their presence at private schools as being appropriate or at least acceptable?

In

In General

Oh, I though you were diagreeing with Obama:

And when you repeatedly called The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) astroturfers, I assumed you disagreed with Greenwald who has repeatedly sung their praises. Misunderstandings abound.

What I haven't heard FoldnDark talk about is how the "Safe Space Movement*" has virtually monopolized the workplace.

Just try having one of these "important" 'intellectual' productive discussions at work. Most places the boss will tell you to STFU at best, or give you the boot at worst. Just look what happened to C.Shilling. Don't the bosses understand that the best way to confront this kinda thingee is by engaging in earnest discussion? Why are they "coddling" their workers by this kinda patriarchal censorship ??

* _{Not at all connected with single-room style "safe spaces", as described by FoldnDark ITT.}

Obama doesn't post here. His opinions regarding if the r-word should be censored, or not, here in Alta Politards aren't relevant.

Greenwald has his own website. AFAIK he doesn't censor the phrase "you're a r-word" either. Regardless, that's not at all relevant to the rules of Alta Politards.

But does Obama agree with Greenwald? And are they both on the same page as Jerry Seinfeld? I'm really having a hard time keeping this straight.

Foldn, when you're having a conversation with someone whose life experience has been a little different than yours, would you prefer to know if something you're saying is a little tone deaf or offensive to them? Or would you rather be ignorant and just keep doing it?

Missile keeps bringing this up, is this true Foldn? Do you believe the statement "you're a racist" should be against forum rules?

Good questions. Lucid, reasoned answers are imminent. Personally, I'd rather not remain ignorant and oblivious. If I were being offensive I'd rather it be due to indifference, not ignorance (although one could argue that being offensive and indifferent is ignorant.)

I've been consistent throughout this thread that safe spaces themselves are not a big issue for me. There are certainly criticisms to be made from a psychological point of view on the problems with encouraging people to hide away and shield themselves from ideas they disagree with, and this is what Lukianoff talks about in the article "Coddling of the American Mind" where he recommends cognitive behavior therapy, but I don't have an issue with oppressed groups like LGBT or minorities wanting a space to get away, relax and chill, free from the daily onslaught of "microaggressive" speech.

The objections coming from me, and tons of other liberal-minded critics are to the expansion and institutionalizing of that philosophy into the classroom, campus, and greater society which is used to stifle disagreeable opinions. It's wrongheaded in so many ways.

You're describing the sort of PC I support. Basically, it's civility with a nod to empathy of others with vastly different life experiences. It started out pretty innocently back in the 80's/90's, and while sometimes you kind of rolled your eyes, most people were happy to say "Asian" instead of "Oriental". Likewise, if someone didn't get the memo, or they disagreed wearing an afro for halloween should be taken as offensive, or tried to argue any opinion that many on the far left (or far right) had made up their minds about, it was much more rare they would face screaming children calling them bigots and all sorts of ridiculousness. Sure that happened a bit back in the day, but most people realized how inappropriate that was. Today not so much.

Not necessarily. Like, plenty of forums don't need hard and fast civility rules, the posters are able to have disagreements without always resorting to long drawn out personal attacks. But in a forum that needs an enforceable rule "attack the argument, not the arguer," (a good idea most people learn in grade school) I believe the rule should be applied in a viewpoint neutral manner. So as a rule, if "you're a moron" is not allowed, neither should "you're a racist."

FoldN rolling his eyes because he can't talk like Archie Bunker any more without societal disapproval is the perfect cliff notes for this thread.

Or just try to have a reasonable discussion... video of LG?

I'm confused that you claim to support this, because that's basically what UNC is doing by pointing out to people that golf is a highly class-based activity (as much as Golf Digest probably pretends it isn't) and maybe suggesting a round of golf at a country club for your staff retreat is a bit of a failure to understand the background of a diverse group of people.

Like, that's what calling something a "microaggression" is - pointing out to people that otherwise wouldn't get it (as you clearly don't) that, hey, sometimes people are different than you and the things you take for granted (like "I'm white and my dad took me golfing when I was little, as all dads do for kids everywhere amirite?") don't necessarily apply to everyone, and to assume otherwise can make you tone deaf to others' experiences.

But you got perturbed at that Golf Digest thing, so uh, what?

Yeah, one of those forums is right next door... Baja Politards. It's the same group of posters, and in neither forum are posters "resorting to long drawn out personal attacks". This is an argument for getting rid of the no "name calling" rule entirely. Like I keep saying... you're really hurting the cause with this gibberish.

You keep doing this over and over. You're begging the question. You are arguing... well you're not arguing, you're just parroting the same crap over and over again mindlessly... that saying "you're a r-word" is always "name calling" in all possible contexts. This has been pointed out to you at least 2 dozen times.

Here, once again, you are hurting the cause. If you claim, as you do, to be interested in having 'intellectual' & productive discussions, you lose all credibility when you engage in this long term pattern (>2 dozen times) of outright refusing to engage in an 'intellectual' discussion, or to act in any way productive.

You know, those safe spaces. Like the ones the racists are demanding.

Is that an example of someone exercising free speech rights that you would like to censor? Im confused, because I see two people speaking freely.

Or is this more of a tone policing situation for you?

It's simple. Let's say FoldnDark went to a football game. Chants for his team are "free speech", yay go team !!!1! Chants for the other team are "name calling", and need to be censored for the cause of greater productivity.