“Safe Spaces” and the Mote in America's Eye
popehat.com
popehat.com
It is really quite confusing because the people that exist in these spaces are generally quite vehemently opposed to those same types of interventions. They see themselves as existing in a system which has worked against them for years, and they are suspicious of it. They see legislation as typically working against them, and they are working to fight it.
Personally, I support the right for safe spaces to exist, and for people to be angry when they are offended.
I am also personally opposed to safe spaces. I'm queer and they made me feel like I wasn't the right type of queer. I view them as another reinforcement of utterly meaningless hierarchies.
In this case though, the author's view of the people in those spaces seems to be that they are linked with a movement that they generally reject. The author doesn't have a very nuanced view of those people. I'd venture that they don't know those spaces very well.
edit: Its also quite confusing since safe spaces have a history that starts long before 9/11.
The bulk of the specific complaints are about things like free speech zones, censorship, or banning, disinviting, or attacking speakers. These are all basically methods to provide intellectual "safety" to everybody regardless of whether they've asked for it, and I don't think they're really comparable with more limited (what I would think of as "traditional") safe spaces.
Edit: The Judith Shulevitz New York Times opinion piece linked early on (which made the rounds a few weeks ago) is clearly an inspiration of this post, and Shulevitz does a much better job of actually engaging with the "normal" definition of a safe space, its earlier history, and the expansion the article decries.
"In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea.
But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul...
But the article is very slippery-slope, and mostly doesn't criticize safe spaces directly, just what the author sees as their side effects.
Instead, both are to some extent willing to leave things at "look at the what the wacky Millenials (substitute "leftists", "feminists", "statists" as needed) are up to!"
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the messy intersection with politics and identity in this area. It's tough to come across criticism that doesn't devolve into political posturing, and even thoughtful discussion is easily dismissed as it often comes from "the other side."
0. http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-di... 1. http://ucsdguardian.org/2015/04/01/students-be-aware-of-camp...
I'm all for criticizing these spaces but the article draws a very bewildering link between a misunderstanding of liberty with the people that support them. That's a tenuous connection, at best.
The article confuses me and it doesn't feel like the author has a familiarity with the typical politics of people that frequent safe spaces.
Given what you've said, I really have two options with this article:
1) I can read it as fundamentally misreading the politics of people who use safe spaces on campus 2) I can read it as misunderstanding the generally accepted meaning of the term "safe space"
In both cases, my conclusion is that the author does not have a high level of understanding of the subject matter. I hope this isn't taken as a refutation of criticism broadly, as I've attempted to make clear.
But I mean it when I call his use of the term 'safe spaces' unfortunate. Both of the interpretations you gave revolve around how to interpret his use of the term. Leave it out completely, is my advice.
You don't get to, for example, run vicious media smear campaigns and organize automated blacklists of people on Twitter and still claim that you aren't aligned, at least in principal and methods, with the enemies of liberty--no matter how worthy your cause otherwise.
The other issue is that, culturally speaking, the mindset of those critical of microagressions and identity politics and other important issues also tends to dismiss or antagonize folks that are very much supportive of liberty or free speech or the right to bear arms. This ends up in a lot of sapping of resources on both sides as they fight over things as trivial as whether or not you can get married in a church.
It's actually very convenient to the folks in charge, if you want to be cynical.
What are you referring to here?
If a communications medium doesn't have functioning anti-spam, it drowns in spam. If it doesn't have functioning anti-abuse, it now appears that there will be a wave of harrasment and abuse.
The most recent victim of this I can name is Sue Perkins, after the rumour went round about her being a replacement presenter for Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. This was nothing to do with her and had no truth in it, but nonetheless resulted in a misogynist hate campaign.
https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker
I'd rather not talk about that subject too much, because it's such a clusterfuck. That said, there's an example for you.
EDIT:
A similar setup, for the curious.
> https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker
how is that an example of a blacklist the "the enemies of liberty" would employ?
Is an ad blocker blacklist an egregious attempt to stifle free speech just because you don't want that shit running in your browser?
Most of the people on these block lists are... I'm going to charitably describe them as "trolls". Generally, accounts are added for harassment, abusive or threatening behavior, outright hate speech, deliberately triggering someone's PTSD symptoms, encouraging specific suicidal people to commit suicide, and that kind of thing. Oh, and trying to evade a block, or encouraging others to harass someone.
On any even lightly moderated discussion forum, these users would have been banned. Most of this is actually against Twitter's TOS, and theoretically could be grounds for suspending an account, but Twitter doesn't really do anything about it. They know it happens, but haven't come up with any kind of workable solution yet.
Most of the users of the block lists are people who have been targetted by those same trolls, and who have chosen to just ignore them.
The people using the block lists tend to be women (especially feminists), various racial minorities, LGBT people (and related activists, especially transgender people), and various other marginalized groups. They are pretty much universally harassed for what they are, and for standing up for themselves against the standard pervasive sexism / racism / whatever.
Whoever is subscribed has their potential feed manipulated by...some group? For reasons? It's certainly easier than manually removing trolls, but imagine finding yourself on the wrong end of one of these bots or a more aggressive descendant, just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial.
The entire point of these things is to make a safe space--where safe is defined as not merely keeping out dissenting thought but indeed making it appear as though it never existed, very much like a memoryhole. On some places (like HN or Something Awful or whatever) you'll see a post downvoted or annotated with "User was banned for this post. Reason: User is a mansplaining shithead".
We're a bit down the rabbit hole here. I'm curious if there are such bots created by the folks on the other side of the issue, or intended for use by people on the other side of the aisle. I suspect not, but I simply haven't checked yet.
Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists.
> appear as though it never existed
Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
The point is that, even if I only ever tweeted about sandwiches, these tools will effectively silence me because of my association. And your solution that I remove myself and appeal my ban, caused just because someobdy found one of the people I follow offensive? That solution is exactly the sort of thing that violates my right to freedom of association and that makes everyone proposing that solution look closed-minded.
The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.
One could make the exact argument about any number of things, and it would sound just as close-minded. I'm not defending the abuse and death threats and whatnot, mind you, but you aren't winning any prizes for "most tolerant of other ideas". I understand the reasoning, I understand with where it's coming from, but
And more than that, Twitter itself isn't maintaining the blocklists. The people who want to use blocklists are. Freedom of assocation has never meant, "I get to walk into -your- meeting and do whatever I want." It means you can set up your own meeting.
You can't force your way into the blocklist users' field of view, and while that may be personally frustrating for you, it is entirely within the entire world's right to ignore you if the entire world chooses.
So, again, I'm not saying "I want to force myself on other people". I'm also not saying "These people are terrible for using blocklists". I'm not saying "The world needs more rape and death threats". I'm not saying "The world must not allow some user to be ignored, ever ever ever".
Very specifically, and all together now, I'm saying:
"These blocklists allow people who have no other sin than an edge connecting them with somebody on the banlist to be blocked in turn, and they'll never know about it unless they actively seek it out, and they are effectively being punished in discovery rates because of something somebody else did. That they must renounce that edge is unfortunate, and that the attitude that this is okay if they refuse to remove the edge regardless of other facts (i.e., they are tweeting great on tech, but they follow XYZ even without ever commenting on those topics, so shhhhuuuuuun) is backwards."
Whether
If they (the users of those GG blocklists) want to keep gamergaters out of their twitter experience 100%, and act as though that objectionable swath of people simply doesn't exist online, that is entirely within their agency to decide.
And to address your snark, "some group" is people they trust, and "reasons" is because of an endless torrent of abuse, leading up to and including death and rape threats, publication of personal information, and so on.
As for the word salad about liberty and guns, it almost sounds like you're trolling.
As for the rest, I got somewhat off in the weeds, sure.
That said, there is a very large problem maintaining this view in the era of mass point-to-point communication if one also (as I do!) admits the issues of emotional harm. The problem is not so much in the messages, but in the quantity and ubiquity.
I've brought it up before, I'll bring it up again, I'll probably even write a blog post about it, but everybody is so hot-and-bothered about the current victim-of-the-month that they don't care about the underlying philosophical issues.
Free speech isn't compulsory listening.
Hurt feeling debates are about nothing, typically, but Israel/Palestine is very much about something.
For sure, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is substantial and deals with objective reality in the middle east that actually affects the lives of millions of people. I'm just saying that the debate on my campus was never about any objective reality, and only revolved around the feelings of the participants. The main claim was on both sides "if the school adopts decision _, my feelings will be hurt really bad".
EDIT: for downvoters: why is it ok to point out diversity politics in universities and not in US politics?
But really, the only purpose here, as is the case with most PopeHat rants, is to attempt to appeal to everyone. The subtle calling-out of women, blacks, and gays will please one type of person. The civil libertarianism will please another type of person. It's a very transparent thing if you read more than one PopeHat rant -- what they choose to focus on is what will maximize their readership and back-patting. Anything else is minimized and ignored.
PopeHat is useful because the writers are sometimes passionate enough to produce decent writing about individual cases of people's self-interest overriding common sense and maybe endangering actual freedom. But many posts on it are transparently sparked by dishonest opportunism. In this case, the opportunity was fabricated out of nothing. (see tomlock's comment)
Author is display exceptional level of bias throwing in culture he doesn't understand or know about...
Just like in a city urban center that is predominantly black, but the police, judges, city council and mayor are all predominantly white.
Number of people does not necessarily equal power.
https://chronicle.com/article/Who-Are-College-Presidents-/13...
There are probably also interesting conversations to have about why men are graduating college less than women, particularly black men, who attend college at a rate much lower than any other demographic in the US, including black women. It's tempting to make it "us against them" (no matter who the "us" is), but, it's probably not useful except for the most powerful (who do tend to be white and male, though not all white males fit into that category).
What does this mean and where is the actual documentary evidence to back it up (assuming that whatever it means would need such things)?
Ken is a great writer and a great American. I'm grateful to him for pointing out these problems with great style.
Or to put it another way - you stand a much better chance of experiencing safe space within a group of trusted acquaintances who agree to the agenda, than in a broad-based organization . The latter is there to employ you in a war.
The people I know who use the term "safe space" are the same folks I consistently see at rallies and marches and direct actions related to all of those issues (and more, that you never see the white "liberty" guys show up for; women's reproductive health access particularly among poor women of color, immigrant detainment issues, murder of people of color by police, etc.).
The term "safe space" has a specific meaning, which has nothing to do with free speech. It is a term used to define a space that people opt into, and generally the use of force is not considered part of the process of achieving a safe space. It isn't about whether you're free to say something. A safe space is something one chooses to be part of; a specific community or conversation, which, as a group, has decided to not be assholes to each other based on race, or gender, or sexual preference, etc.
It's interesting that in a conversation alleging people are demanding they never have their feelings hurt, a lot of white men are demanding they not have their feelings hurt by anyone asserting that white men sometimes say/do racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic stuff. The privilege tantrum is truly a thing to behold. It never ceases to amaze me, no matter how many times I see it...and I see it all the time.
You define a safe space as something that people opt into. Do you really believe that? Here's an example that doesn't look very opt-in to me:
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2013/10/nypd-commissione...
Further - while some people are no doubt standing up for free speech to protect their privilege, many are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with their own feelings - but because we are concerned about the possibility that we might be wrong in our beliefs; the exact opposite of worrying about our own feelings. I don't agree with NYPD actions in recent times. But I need to be able to listen to what they have to say - JUST IN CASE I'm wrong in those beliefs.
To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind. That many on the left can't see this is a great modern, political tragedy. They would achieve so much more if they did.
I believe the police commissioner of NYPD has sufficient power and influence to be heard in any number of venues (and, any time he holds a press conference, the world shows that I'm right in this assertion). I believe it is protecting privilege to insist he be heard when there are thousands of voices in the neighborhoods he has pledged to protect who those in power have refused to hear for decades. The time for the police commissioner to speak on issues of police abuse might be over...it might be time to hear somebody else talk about it, even if they have to be rude and yell to be heard.
"To not admit this possibility would be hubris of the worst kind."
On that, we are agreed. So why do we hear predominantly from police and representatives of police when police kill someone? I think our difference of perspective comes from the idea that everyone has equal access to "free speech" and so we should listen to everyone equally. But, that's not the reality we live in. The police commissioner, the mayor, the attorney general, etc. all have a vastly disproportionate amount of access to "free speech" that people of color who are their victims do not have.
"That many on the left can't see this is a great modern, political tragedy."
I am not on the left, though I can see how it might appear that way in this particular conversation.
"They would achieve so much more if they did."
I believe they'd also achieve so much more if they had the resources of those in power. But, they don't. So, they work with what they've got. And, sometimes all they have is the ability to shut shit down (and then go to jail for it, because that's how this system responds to criticism from those with the least access who resort to direct action out of desperation).
Yeah - to be honest this response reads as though it was printed on the back of a packet of intersectional brand cereal. If only it were police chiefs that this cereal logic is responsible for attacking.
There are comedians who get publicly humiliated over misunderstandings:
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-presenter-humiliated-me-on-stage-...
Male developers that get fired for making dick jokes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/techie-adria-richards-fired-afte...
...as though either of these transgressions were really worth the level of sanction your cereal logic ultimately demands.
Yes, yes all privileged so you don't care about them - and you'll point out that the blow back onto the naive social justice folks that tried to apply this cereal logic is arguably worse. And I would agree. Except while I'll see the cause of both their completely unnecessary suffering in that cereal logic of yours, you'll blame the existing power structures for it.
You'll egg them on while writing outraged tweets in their defense - signalling how much of a good person you are for being intersectional. Kotaku will get another zillion page views for covering the controversy. And the two people at the center of it - get publicly torn apart.
It might be time to challenge that response of yours.
Also, what brand of cereal are you buying that comes with "logic"? Your comment is more confusing than anything, frankly.
"You'll egg them on while writing outraged tweets in their defense - signalling how much of a good person you are for being intersectional."
I don't think we know each other, and I don't believe you follow me on twitter. I'm not interested in being some sort of straw man for your angry tirade.
Safe spaces don't insulate minority groups from ideas they don't like. Those groups are exposed to ideas they don't like all the time, every day, via every avenue of media.
A safe space is a moment of solace to discuss issues specific groups are particularly affected by without being berated by the 18 year old generic white male libertarian who seems so keen on letting the minority groups how they should be behaving.
Satya's comments were poorly stated and he said as much. People spoke freely about it, and he clarified. Free speech in action!
And your analysis is very shallow. Of course speech was "free" in the legal sense, that is not the issue. The issue is that even though his honest opinion was that in the long run, women's approach might not be a big disadvantage, he was forced to recant and give the "right" answer.
I'm interested in why you have the perspective that Satya was being honest and then recanted, since he pretty clearly stated that he misspoke, and it is easy to see how he misspoke. My perspective is he was speaking in terms of how tech ought to be for women, but failed to mention that the situation for women was currently different. The idea that women ought to be able to trust the system is a given, but Satya didn't say "but it currently isn't so" and in his apology he cleared that up. Good on him!
That's just completely wrong, watch the video again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndm_RSvAgO4
Do you have any examples?
http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/28/google-admits-it-hires-too-...
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/03/amazon-diversity-2014/
(Both reports show that Asians are overrepresented, white people represented, and others underrepresented.)
Neither of those articles - from a single source - describe Asians as white; Asian is explicitly broken out as a seperate category and described as a minority.
"It’s no better on the race front, either, with the highest minority being Asian at 34% in tech and next to non-existent in anything else."
Did you miss the fact that Asians are only "overrepresented" in tech, and not in other parts of Google?
Amazon doesn't break the job types into tech and non tech. They do Amazon everything and Amazon management. But even that tech crunch report shows that they have seperated out white, Asian, black, hispanic, and other.
These are weak examples considering the claim you made.
It seems you and I live in a different country.
Well, the discussion here is about the US, where that is definitely true. "Safe spaces" give straight white men the slightest taste of what the rest of the world is like for people who aren't that trifecta. And, predictably, we straight white men freak the hell out when exposed to that...
Yes, each of these specifiers confer a statistical advantage, but this is such a large demographic group (even within the US) that it seems bizarre to treat it as homogenous in any way.
(Then again, perhaps I'm just allergic to marketing-speak, and prefer to think of people as such.)
No it isn't. Not only is the media apparatus in full-throated support of "women, black people, and the LGBT community", the last people on the planet who should need safe spaces are the people who demand them: wealthy and the UMC white women at places like Vassar and Oberlin.
Truly disadvantaged people can't afford to be that weak.
If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that?
I didn't say they shouldn't. I was merely pointing out these groups get no more in the way of negative messaging from the media than white men. Quite a bit less, actually.
>If those groups are now working to obtain more economic and political power, in a world that has historically and remains economically and politically skewed against them, why would anyone not support that?
Why indeed? Maybe because they already have political power in proportion to their size? More so, in fact - if you want to know who's in charge all you need to do is find out who you can't criticize. White men, at what, about 30% of the US population, seem to be quite safe to criticize, wouldn't you say?
How do you figure that? There are 19 women heads of state in the world right now, out of 190-some countries. Worldwide, only about 22% of parliamentarians (MPs, representatives, etc) are women. I'm pretty sure women make up more than 22% of the population.
There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care--women, not men, are having female-specific health care decisions made for them by (male-dominated) force of law, rather than by consultation with a doctor or personal agency.
As for all this talk about who gets criticized, you make it sound like white men have, in addition to political dominance, unimaginably thin skin and sensitive constitutions. "Stop! We're being criticized! They're saying we have all the powerrrrr!" My eyes, they can't stop rolling.
We were talking about the US. I have little interest in what other countries do unless it becomes a problem for mine.
>There's also a never-ending raft of laws, especially in the US, aimed at controlling women's access to health care...
If by that you mean adding restrictions to infanticide, well, I suppose they get proposed on a regular basis. They hardly ever pass, though, and when they do they're gutted by the courts. Not what I'd describe as a "never-ending raft". More like a soggy paper boat.
>As for all this talk about who gets criticized, you make it sound like white men have, in addition to political dominance, unimaginably thin skin and sensitive constitutions.
Nice try. Just because I draw your attention to a double standard doesn't mean I'm ready to run to a "safe space". I'm simply pointing out white men, at 30% of the population, don't control the country.
If men actually had "political dominance" we'd have laws against paternity fraud. And you wouldn't be able to sponge off your ex after deciding you weren't that into him any more. Women pay less than half the health care dollars and yet they use 2/3 of the services. That hardly seems fair, does it?
But no. More than half the voters are women complaining about having no power while at the same time calling the shots.
White men, at 30%, do control the country. You are misinformed if you think otherwise.
Why do women and minorities get special consideration in employment and education? Why don't women pay their own freight on health care?
I've present support for my argument and you've... well, you've re-presented your assertion.
To go from that actual real fact about the world, to the conclusion that women therefore rule the world, takes a rather grand leap of imagination.
(I also can't figure out why you have that fixation on family law, but it doesn't support the assertion that women rule the world, and it doesn't really make any sense on its own.)
You keep saying that, but proof by assertion isn't going to get you very far.
>To go from that actual real fact about the world, to the conclusion that women therefore rule the world, takes a rather grand leap of imagination.
Again, we were talking about the US. Please try to stay on topic.
>I also can't figure out why you have that fixation on family law...
Because it's grossly unfair to men, and it wouldn't be if men actually exercised the power you imagine.
You seriously don't know the gender/race make-up of our elected officials?
Is that what your hang-up is? You really think there are more women and people of color in office and in positions of power than white men?
Really?
If you are that misinformed, I am a little astonished.
Just look it up.
Of course I know what it is. I also know it's irrelevant, since women make up the majority of voters. Politicians don't get elected if they don't pander to women.
You clearly don't understand how power is wielded in a democracy, which is probably how you arrived at views so at odds with reality.
Again, forget about the skin color and sex of people in office. It doesn't matter. Look at the laws, and look at the way they are executed by the courts.
I guess once you start denying objective reality and common sense, you can go anywhere, including "women secretly rule the world". Well done.
I guess looking at outcomes is too complicated. That's okay. Men will just do what we always do - roll our eyes at your complaints and shoulder most of the load.
He didn't do that.
He used the term 'safe spaces' to talk about something else, which was obviously a mistake but please don't get hung up on the terminology and read the whole and follow a few of the links.
You must have read his writing differently than I considering he wrote:
>I call these young people out for valuing illusory and subjective safety over liberty.
"For some time I've been mean [0] to university students who feel entitled to a "safe space" [1] — by which they seem to mean a space where they are insulated [2] from ideas they don't like [3]."
He does not mean "I hereby call out out these young people ..." but rather "This is what I did in the preceding links". This is a sticky topic and it's really easy to read stuff into things that isn't there - especially when the author expropriates a term like 'safe spaces' but if you read it critically and follow a few of the links I think you'll discover that he is in no way attacking minorities.
0. http://popehat.com/2014/11/05/breaking-existence-of-u-of-ore... 1. http://popehat.com/2015/04/14/fear-and-butthurt-at-uc-san-di... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul... 3. http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/opinion-campus-s...