Doesn't matter. There's an anecdote about a student being a crybaby and that's the biggest threat facing humanity today. Get with the program. We can deal with the Christians once we sort out the safe spacers.
The pervasive whining being addressed in the article is spot on and was recently addressed in another HN posting: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi...
There is a large segment of society that assumes that any alternate point of view, irrespective of how it's presented, must be an attack against them. This is akin to chastising someone warning people not to pick up the active business-end of an arc-welder.
What the original poster intended you never know...
Isn't this the essence of religion after all?
It's like that you don't know what were the real intentions of the OP who is unavailable and can't be reached and you're just left with vague texts and conflicting interpretations and re-interpretations making you feeling completely confused and lost.
Hyperbole?
> We can deal with the Christians
I don't want to deal with the Christians. I don't agree with their worldview most of the time, but the don't need to be dealt with.
> once we sort out the safe spacers
They are the safe spacers, just by a different name. Also, I think safe spaces are fine and they don't need sorted out.
I was just making an observation on his hypocrisy and that safe spaces are not just for left-leaning people. He has cultivated a safe space for Christians and is bemoaning safe spaces for potential non-Christians.
(This addresses only the first part of your comment.)
If a group wants to acquire private property and start a club or meeting where they gather to share like-minded ideas and be away from dissent, that is acceptable. The place for "safe spaces" away from intellectual challenge is NOT the square of a university campus.
The basic protocol requires an accurate summary of the topic and the sentiment from the initiator, and a single bit from the target.
BTW this is essentially how Mormon missionaries do it ("Do you want to hear about my views on Jesus (positive)? Y/N", and I think it's great.
And that seems maybe a bit silly.
Obviously there are shades of gray depending on the particular speech, and we've collectively drawn a line around certain speech (call it "hate speech") which we do believe should be censored. Otherwise, the correct response to speech you don't agree with is more speech ideally in the form of reasoned and well-informed debate of the issues.
What I find the most perplexing is how, in many cases it seems like the original speech which was deemed offensive or victimizing, which typically itself was not even directed at the "victim", is answered in return with extreme prejudice and hate directly aimed at the original speaker. This can also be combined with a social media campaign to attempt to politicize the whole event and inflict maximum damage. This is why I am often confused as to who is the real victim in these cases.
The ad blocker analogy is interesting. Even blocking ads is somewhat contentious (e.g. lawsuits against DVRs with 30-second skip buttons, site owners saying their revenue stream has been decimated, etc.) and this is simply users controlling what their own devices are doing! Blocking an ad might deprive a site of revenue, but it doesn't deprive anyone else of their voice -- no one is being censored.
You say we surely allow people to shovel words into our brains... Hearing speech you don't like is one thing, but what about someone else taking their own inability to function in a diverse culture, and using it to dictate the words anyone who happens to be around them are allowed to speak? This sounds like a case where the medicine is worse than the disease.
The biggest problem with "safe spaces" is that they are not actually limited to small rooms in the student union with play-dough and elevator music, but I think a lot of people are very concerned that the intent is ultimately for the entire campus to be policed like one. And I do mean policed, because stepping afoul of the mythical safe space code of conduct is taken as a capital offense, to which you may see literal rioting in response.
There's a lot to unpack in your comment, but I want to focus on the above. I believe you do have a right to filter your input, and indeed, we can do and MUST filter it because there is so much of it. Certainly my right to speak should not trump your right to not have to be listen.
I think that the galling part about the safe space thing is that people are going to places which are designed to be not safe (in that sense) and then demanding everyone stop doing what they came there to do. It's like walking into a bar and proclaiming "I'm an alcoholic and you're all harming me by drinking in front of me!" That's stupid. But I, for one, don't want the stupidity of a few to somehow lead to a world where I'm forced to listen when I don't want to.
I don't think it's possible to measure insecurity and I don't think it's necessary to measure it. With enough life experience you can detect insecurity in an adult by the the things they say and their reactions to certain events.