As with many articles on the subject, I think it's important to define what precisely "safe spaces" mean.

The Economist attempts to define a "good" version:

> Like many bad ideas, the notion of safe spaces at universities has its roots in a good one. Gay people once used the term to refer to bars and clubs where they could gather without fear, at a time when many states still had laws against sodomy.

I've seen it written elsewhere that there are many existing safe space where people can come together and talk: an Asian American gathering, or Black Student Union meetings, or LGBT support groups, etc. I think these spaces are critical for the comfortable discussion and sharing of some pretty private details about a person's struggles and thoughts. These spaces aren't meant to dissuade dissenting opinion so much as provide a place where people feel safe to express their thoughts with others who understand, empathize, or have undergone similar situations/thoughts.

But there's always going to be impletations taken to extremes, and the Economist article appears to be targeting those. But I wonder: exactly how prevalent are safe spaces that act as "justification for shutting out ideas"?

At least anecdotally, I haven't seen that many. This feels like taking what seems to me a minority of safe spaces and painting the entire idea with broad strokes.

I worry that people are strawmanning the idea of safe spaces by only using egregious examples as examples of bad, while ignoring the (IMO) vast amounts of good they have helped foster.