Join TSR now and get answers to all your questions about uniSign up now

First "safe space" notice seen at University.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    So what are you saying, the sociology students are more likely to get offended?
    Well, they're amongst the most opinionated people I've ever met.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    No but safe spaces are the start of mass censorship in universities. Lets say you are talking politics and you state that Black on black crime in America is 5x higher than white on white or white on black crime. and somone feels offended, they might try and refute the point, or they can just leave. Nothing stopping them from leaving or growing some thick skin.

    Universities are not a place where your ideas are meant to feel "safe" University is there to challenge you and make you think and having safe spaces destroys this, especially when safe spaces seep into the real world and the whole campus tries to become a "safe space"

    There is this communist kid at our school and we frequently engage in political arguments with him and we both learn and see eachothers point of view.

    And truth be told if anyone is saying that people need a place to feel safe from "harmful" things we already do.

    If I am feeling sad or angry where can I go?
    1. Away from the problem, just leave
    2. Go to my house/room
    3.Go anywhere that the person or thing that you feel offended by is not.

    Safe spaces also breed extremeism, lets say you have a feminist safe space and they are all saying false statistics like 1in3 women are raped on campus or any false statistic there is not really anyone there that is going to challenge you and go actually that statistic is false and here is why, because if they do somone is going to cry that they are being harmful and remove them from the safe space.

    This works equally with other ideologies, you put a bunch of misinformed leave or remain voters in a safe space that no one else is allowed in and you might get a bunch of beliving that 50 Million migrants come in to Uk every year or that the EU provides 80% of British money.


    Safe spaces also seek to divide people and segregation never works. In america I am sure you could get a safe space for black people, how is this helpful this creates no dialouge and enforces a us and them idea.

    Worse is when a safe space consumes a university and ideas that may be considered rude or harmful are silenced and thrown out. Did somone say that they like Farage offend you OUT! did somone say something about the Islamic slave trade or the fact that black people sold other black people into slavery offend you OUT!.


    Safe spaces are dangerous and never should be implimented
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    My current uni has warning about the hand driers on the toilette doors. :erm:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    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
    You seem to be conflating 'no platforming' with 'safe spaces' - they aren't the same thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Maybe some people just want a break from stuff like swearing though. It doesn't
    The onus is on you, and you alone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You seem to be conflating 'no platforming' with 'safe spaces' - they aren't the same thing.
    No I am not. I know the difference and I was just making reference to Dawkins being No platformed. and in a way No platforrming is done due to people being offended and wanting a "safe space" from Dawkins views.

    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epage)
    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.

    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    SJWs are slowly taking over. The disease is spreading from the US.
    The self pitty butterfly generation- what is happening to our write of free speech? This is further eroding our 'democracy'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    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
    Wow okay. Firstly, I think it's pretty funny that you think in safe spaces gay people sit around a table and discuss 'gay things'. Umm, no. LGBT+ pride parades are safe spaces. LGBT+ bars and clubs are safe spaces. Safe spaces aren't exclusively for discussing oppression etc. mostly, they're just a place people go to feel safe. People are not kicked out of LGBT safe spaces unless they are offensive.

    I don't know if you've ever heard of a gay/straight alliance group, or an LGBT alliance whatever. But its where people go, anonymously, to discuss LGBT matters etc. No one is refused entry. The point of the 'alliance' part is that it lets closeted gay people in as if they are 'allies' so they are not outed simply by going to these meetings. You simply cannot refuse anyone entry because the likelihood is that they are closeted.

    It's the same with LGBT pride parades. It's a safe space, and a lot of straight people DO go to them. They aren't kicked out. They could be supporting an LGBT friend who is perhaps closeted/didn't want to go by themselves perhaps. However, it is a safe space and that means if you use offensive behaviour, are abusive or discriminatory, you can be kicked out, because you are a threat to the 'safe' space.

    You are deeply misinformed if you think that safe spaces breed hatred, and should probably stop listening to milo yiannopolous or Breitbart news or whatever. Go to an LGBT safe space with your girlfriend. You won't get kicked out, and no one will bat an eyelid probably. You could be bi, trans, asexual, or just an ally, so you aren't going to be refused entry.

    Also, please provide sources on where black people are calling for the death of white people/cops because the last I heard they just want cops to be accounted for their actions, and to be equal. And if you don't want to cater to people's religious freedoms, don't expect people to cater to yours when you have every right to your own freedoms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    Not when it assumes that all people in that given group are suffering at the hands of all the people who share certain traits with their attackers.

    For example, giving black people a safe space away from white people is insulting because it directly assumes that all white people are racist.

    I know this statement has been trotted out so many times by so many people (though that doesn't make it any less pertinent), but can you imagine if white people wanted a safe space away from black people for any given reason?

    Ghetto communities are still recovering (and struggling) due to the last time that happened, nevermind the social uproar that would occur this time round.

    I know it's a pretty extreme example, but I've just woken up and I'm sure you get my point regardless. If it's right for one, it's right for another. If it's not right for one, then it cannot be right for another. Equality, yo.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    :lol: Goodness, I spilled my coffee everywhere and I wish I was only making a euphemism
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    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 so you're assuming what they constitute as an insult so it fits your "SJWs are taking over" rhetoric. How fallacious.

    This is one uni, and its not even a RG uni so this i doubt its worth a discussion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    I quite clearly said they are different yet had some simmilarities. They did not want dawkins at the event as he may offend people. Safe spaces are places where people go to not feel offended. They have simmillarities but they are both different.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: October 3, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.