Hacker News Reader

Comment by lsadam0 | Hacker News Reader

That's literally the opening line of the response. You conveniently ignored the meat of a well constructed point in an attempt to quickly show that OP agrees with you.

OP has correctly exemplified the idea of 'safe spaces' being used to silence debate and discussion. Thus allowing every individual to possess their own subjective truth, and conveniently dispose with hard realities when their beliefs are in conflict with said realities. This is exactly the same as the far right in America conveniently ignoring the reality of climate change.

I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely, but the danger here is individuals retreating to a 'safe space' every time life hands them lemons. We didn't progress this far in human culture by tip toeing around beliefs.

View on HN

Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was people should have the right to speak among themselves in a space that doesn't include people who are being aggressive (aka being a jerk). It doesn't matter if it's a minority group's safe space or your friend's mancave. You got a right not to associate with people who are either inherently antisocial or easily agitated by the fact that you exist (like LGBT people). It has nothing to do with "subjective truth" or any other such nonsense. It has to do with the fact that people's rights of association should be fundamentally respected. If you think this is too much to ask then I suggest you move to another country (yes I'm going to use the love it or leave it meme) where the freedom of association is limited and/or prohibited because we Americans love to control how we associate and with whom we associate. And as for 'retreating', too bad if you demand everyone to live on your terms but until you PAY for everyone's time in kind then you have no say in what people can and will do for themselves.

I was never addressing a post you made. We're not having the same conversation.

Okay thanks, sorry of the confusion.

I did not ignore the rest of the argument at all.

I was indirectly pointing out that the OP had used the first line, not as a statement of belief, but as a token so that they could say the rest of what they actually believe.

Similarly, you say "I'm all for oppressed groups having a safe space and living their lives freely", followed by "but", followed by what you seem to actually believe. Which one of your statements is true?

You fail to understand that this issue is not binary. It is not required to be either fully supportive or fully against safe spaces. Safe spaces can be valuable. The original article, OP, and myself are showing a concern at the usage of safe spaces to silence debate.

We shouldn't train people to retreat when their beliefs are challenged. We shouldn't train people to hold their opinions as some strange mix of subjective absolute truth. We are all wrong sometimes, and we all need to be challenged.

I appreciate your concern. I'm also very interested in hearing your opinion on what the role of safe spaces should be, and where they are proper.

Are you actually interested, or looking for a way to extend your disingenuous argument?

I'm interested in knowing what would be a valid use of safe spaces, according to the OP.

The OP has clearly explained why they think safe spaces have gone too far, but they've not said under what circumstances they believe that they are proper beyond a general acknowledgement at the beginning of the comment. In order to know what's too far, it's important to know where the line is.

I said I am for safe spaces in general, though I feel they're being abused. What I decried was trigger warnings and the failing of the adults that brought up people that think they need a trigger warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com