First "safe space" notice seen at University.

So what are you saying, the sociology students are more likely to get offended?

What, they want you to walk around and try not to upset people? What a radical notion. Crazy things those SJW's are getting up to these days. Its almost as if we are trying to move away from centuries of violence and exclusion towards minorities, and into a more accepting and inclusive society.

Not clear why people are angry about this. Is it that you want the right to be offensive at all times and in all places? That seems a hard argument to win.

My current uni has warning about the hand driers on the toilette doors.

What, they want you to walk around and try not to upset people? What a radical notion. Crazy things those SJW's are getting up to these days. Its almost as if we are trying to move away from centuries of violence and exclusion towards minorities, and into a more accepting and inclusive society.

Ok so lets look at a standard high street or a University campus.
Safe spaces or not there are not people going around shouting "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" "WOMEN ARE STUPID" "HITLER WAS A GOOD GUY" So thinking that people that want free speech or oppose safe spaces want to do this is a big mistake

Maybe some people just want a break from stuff like swearing though. It doesn't have to be egregious.

Maybe there is an element of overreaction in this, but the fact that it's been so popular elsewhere in the world where it's done suggests there's a need. Also it may be that the UK is more civil and decent in public than many other places (good) but that doesn't mean there's zero need.

A break from swearing, You mean like most schools. You do not see people in classes going "so I think Corbyn is a Fking Shthead and black people oh I hate those fking ass*****. "

Most people have semi civil discussions. and if you feel that swearing is making you uncomfortable leave the conversation or just grow a pair as most places you do not see people swearing left right and center especially in debates. Unless you go to a chavvy area.

And in all honesty swearing constantly detracts from what swearing is meant to do.
If Jon your standard chav tells you to F off it means little he says it all the time.
But if quiet old James who is a nice guy who does not swear often says F off. you know it is serious.

Or look at richard dawkins he does not swear when doing his speeches but plenty of people would be happy to no platform him and would say he is evil.


And being popular does not mean it is good just take mcdonalds

Maybe some people just want a break from stuff like swearing though. It doesn't

The problematic notion is that offence is entirely subjective and entirely self-contradictory. Can you not see how it could very very easily lead to an victimisation auction?

1. Jewish student walks in wearing a star of David necklace. Another student is offended by this, as to him/her it represents the oppression of Palestinians. There is no right to not be offended, but there is a legal, international right to Freedom of Religion. In this case, who gets to have the union on their side?

2. Lets say the "offended" party above wins, and the Jewish student is not permitted into the safe space wearing the star of David. This is an immediate and automatic attack on their freedom of Religion - so now the pro-Palestinian student must now be barred. There can't be much debate about this - it's obvious. So what now? They're both barred?

3.It is well established (not just buy unions, but by law) that offence does not need to be directed at the offended party. A third party can be offended. Student A walks into the safe space, and sees his girlfriend. He says something to the effect of "looking hot". A third party hears this and feels threatened by it. He is barred from the safe space. But now the girlfriend has also been directly affected because her friend has been ejected from the safe space by authority. Can she now appeal to the union to have the third party ejected?

4. It is not possible to gauge someone's offence.How do you judge what a spurious claim of offence is? If the captain of the rugby team claims to be offended by a girl in the safe space using Tinder because it objectifies men - who is going to adjudge if that is genuine offence?

5.A braless woman in Daisy Dukes and a woman in a niqab both walk into the safe space. They are both equally offended by one another's appearance. Who wins?

6. LGBT+ sectional politics. Enough said.

You seem to be conflating 'no platforming' with 'safe spaces' - they aren't the same thing.

1. The point of being inclusive and accepting, is being accepting of everyone's beliefs, unless the cause direct offense or are directly abusive. The jewish student isn't being directly offensive by wearing the star of David. No one knows of their personal beliefs and opinions unless the jewish student chooses to disclose them. So in this case, the jewish student would likely win as their rights are in law, and the pro-Palestinian does not know whether the Jewish student is pro-Israel or anti-Palestine just by wearing the star of David. They can assume, but they have no proof.

2. This case is very hypothetical. Say if the third party were to be offended by this, it isn't something that can't be rectified with a quick conversation to explain what actually happened. Student A most likely has his girlfriend on his side, so she would explain to the third party that it wasn't directed at them. And I'm sure we can safely assume that the third party would believe the girlfriend. Besides, it isn't likely anyone would be that offended by what the guy said to his girlfriend.

3. The girl using tinder wasn't being directly offensive. I guess its difficult to judge direct offense, but if you use abusive or offensive language intentionally, then it's safe to say you are being directly offensive. Tinder isn't an offensive thing. It isn't very likely to cause any offense to anyone, unless you use offensive or abusive language on it. This situation is slightly too hypothetical

4. I think in this situation the two would cancel each other out. No one would win. I guess you could ask the girl to cover up more, as she isn't protected by law and isn't practicing any kind of religion by doing that. I think in a safe space (in this kind of situation) you have to be accepting of other's practices. Here, the two women are allowed to wear what they want without judgement or discrimination from others, so each woman has to understand that with the privilege they are allowed to do that, they have to allow others to exercise the same privilege also.

5. Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

Lots of these reasons boil down to the idea that safe spaces aren't for everyone, and can't be inclusive of everyone or everything. That's why there is a need for different kinds of safe spaces. But the fundamental idea of them is that you have a right and a duty. You have a right to not be subject to offense or discrimination from others. But you also have a duty to not be offense or discriminatory towards others. I'm not a huge fan of safe spaces myself. I think they do further the notion that everyone can be offended by anything, which is true, but can go to far, and I think it is difficult to put a truly safe space into practice. I do agree with tailored safe spaces for LGBT groups, people with disabilities, POC, etc. as they are needed. Safe spaces are meant for people to feel safe, and not everyone feels totally safe expressing religious freedoms etc. outside of them. If someone is threatened, rather than offended by what someone else is doing, fair enough. If you feel threatened by the idea of safe spaces, well, then they aren't for you.

SJWs are slowly taking over. The disease is spreading from the US.

I am just going to adress the last paragraph as I am going to go in like 5 mins.


"I do agree with tailored safe spaces for LGBT groups, people with disabilities, POC"
Why. Sure It is perfectly fine if a bunch of Black or gay people want to get round a table or go into a room and discuss Gay things or the state of Black people in America or whatnot sure they can, but they cannot say HEY STRAIGHT WHITE PERSON GO AWAY. that is discrimination. and safe spaces breed hatred. You see how many black people in america are calling for the death of white people and white cops. and sure if you want religious freedom go to your place of worship but do not expect me to cater to you wanting to pray 5 times a day.

Sorry this reply was not as fleshed out as I would have liked it to be but I have to go
I

But no I do understand the difference and was not trying to say they were the same.
Although having a safe space can effectively No platform anyone with a different opinion

Lol, you say you aren't confusing them, but then you say they are the same thing.

They aren't. No platforming is often a stupid policy and is about who can appear at public meetings. Safe spaces are in particular about giving a group who suffer at the hands of the majority or of others a 'safe space' where they can be away from the usual intimidation or nastiness they routinely suffer. That's a very, very good thing.

At the uni where I work, there are signs warning about parking restrictions. This is an outrage. UKIP members have the clear right to park anywhere they want, including on top of disabled people, or in cafes.

I'm in my last year at UWE (University of the West of England), and I've come to notice, for the first time, a "safe space" notice.

It says that any behaviour that is offensive or abusive will result in a ban from the SU.

What I consider bizarre is the ambiguity.

Going by "offence is taken, not give", this means almost anything could be an insult so long as it offends someone. It could be an opinion, it could be an overheard joke, it could be anything.

Glad it's my last year but who's to say I won't bump into this later on.

Lol, you say you aren't confusing them, but then you say they are the same thing.

They aren't. No platforming is often a stupid policy and is about who can appear at public meetings. Safe spaces are in particular about giving a group who suffer at the hands of the majority or of others a 'safe space' where they can be away from the usual intimidation or nastiness they routinely suffer. That's a very, very good thing.

1. The point of being inclusive and accepting, is being accepting of everyone's beliefs, unless the cause direct offense or are directly abusive. The jewish student isn't being directly offensive by wearing the star of David. No one knows of their personal beliefs and opinions unless the jewish student chooses to disclose them. So in this case, the jewish student would likely win as their rights are in law, and the pro-Palestinian does not know whether the Jewish student is pro-Israel or anti-Palestine just by wearing the star of David. They can assume, but they have no proof.

2. This case is very hypothetical. Say if the third party were to be offended by this, it isn't something that can't be rectified with a quick conversation to explain what actually happened. Student A most likely has his girlfriend on his side, so she would explain to the third party that it wasn't directed at them. And I'm sure we can safely assume that the third party would believe the girlfriend. Besides, it isn't likely anyone would be that offended by what the guy said to his girlfriend.

3. The girl using tinder wasn't being directly offensive. I guess its difficult to judge direct offense, but if you use abusive or offensive language intentionally, then it's safe to say you are being directly offensive. Tinder isn't an offensive thing. It isn't very likely to cause any offense to anyone, unless you use offensive or abusive language on it. This situation is slightly too hypothetical

4. I think in this situation the two would cancel each other out. No one would win. I guess you could ask the girl to cover up more, as she isn't protected by law and isn't practicing any kind of religion by doing that. I think in a safe space (in this kind of situation) you have to be accepting of other's practices. Here, the two women are allowed to wear what they want without judgement or discrimination from others, so each woman has to understand that with the privilege they are allowed to do that, they have to allow others to exercise the same privilege also.

5. Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

Lots of these reasons boil down to the idea that safe spaces aren't for everyone, and can't be inclusive of everyone or everything. That's why there is a need for different kinds of safe spaces. But the fundamental idea of them is that you have a right and a duty. You have a right to not be subject to offense or discrimination from others. But you also have a duty to not be offense or discriminatory towards others. I'm not a huge fan of safe spaces myself. I think they do further the notion that everyone can be offended by anything, which is true, but can go to far, and I think it is difficult to put a truly safe space into practice. I do agree with tailored safe spaces for LGBT groups, people with disabilities, POC, etc. as they are needed. Safe spaces are meant for people to feel safe, and not everyone feels totally safe expressing religious freedoms etc. outside of them. If someone is threatened, rather than offended by what someone else is doing, fair enough. If you feel threatened by the idea of safe spaces, well, then they aren't for you.