You dont understand the concept here- it doesn't matter that *you* might not interpret these actions as being offensive. All that matters is that someone might. That's all that is necessary.(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.
There's no way of adjudicating arbitrary subjective offense.
... will I be disadvantaged?