> The idea that people's feelings should come first, especially before truth/understanding of reality
No one is arguing for this.
No one is arguing for this.
As soon as you claim they are, they scurry away claiming that's not what they mean, but as soon as you say "OK then" and move on, they turn right around and it's all about their feelings again. It is very much a part of the modern PC platform that if someone "feels" assaulted, they are, and you must believe them or you are blaming the victim. This is why accusations are as good as conviction in places where PC reigns supreme, because the fact of accusation is itself proof of feeling, and that's it, case closed.
Don't fall for this transparent rhetorical ploy. Arguments that only appear transiently to dismiss one point, then disappear into the ether immediately after, are not arguments, just rhetoric. (This is a general point that applies in many places, actually.)
Stud 2: When it hurts me!
Stud 1: When it's offensive to me!
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...
"The Freedom of Speech," the legal right defined by the constitution only applies to the government because the constitution only applies to the government.
There's a whole world outside US: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Along with some NYT coverage on this general topic: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-gener...
This issue of students complaining about trigger warnings and the need for safe spaces certainly seems to be increasingly prevalent, but that could just be due to the media giving it more attention.
Are you saying you believe that another person can only be near you because you give them implicit permission to? And that at any time, and for any reason, you could remove that permission?
Where did you get that idea?