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...