[Alreadyobsolete]

The safe community spaces on college campuses are honestly doing the opposite of what you suggest, generally giving people the opportunity to speak without fear. An example being communities where LGBT students can speak without fear of being targeted by homophobia, transphobia or otherwise. It's not unusual for communities to create rules to help foster dialogue and make its members feel safe being in that community

[laughfactory]

Uh, safe for the minority perhaps, but not safe for anyone who would dare to express any contradicting views. Imagine if someone said they thought their was no such thing as being gay, or said that they didn't think being trans was a real thing. Do you think the "safe zone" would be "safe" for them? At least in my perspective it's a very one-sided, anti-freedom of expression movement. It seems ignorant of me for so many which support them to overlook this.

[nhaehnle]

It's not supposed to be safe for other people.

To pick a hopefully neutral example, should it be "safe" for you to go to a chess club meeting and diss everybody there because you think Go is superior? They'll ask you to leave, and rightfully so.

It's a good thing to have these small "bubbles" for all sorts of minorities in which they get to define the rules.

Where it gets more interesting is when it affects the broader public sphere. That said, the particular examples you gave are ones where you'd be rightfully excluded depending on how you approach the subject. The evidence seems pretty clear that being gay or trans are real things. It took me some time to figure that out, but I found that as long as I approached the topic in a civil way, others responded in kind.

The problem is that the kind of people who complain about "anti-freedom of expression" or "excessive political correctness" are usually not the kind of people who approach those topics in a civil way. They have a certain foregone conclusion in their minds, and aren't ready to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion. So naturally, they end up being (justly) excluded from the discussion.

[braveo]

There has literally been attempts at passing legislation to force people to use gender pronouns other than he or she.

Your framing of this issue as simply being about LGBT wanting to be able to meet together without harassment is disingenuous.

[nhaehnle]

Unsuccessful attempts, maybe, although I doubt it. These kinds of stories tend to be greatly exaggerated, so: citation needed.[0] Meanwhile, there have been actual laws (not attempts!) that criminalized deviation from the heterosexual norm not so long ago -- or even today in not-so-nice countries.

The point is: Yes, the public sphere is also changing, but it's changing slowly, and the participants of the discussion who see a danger to freedom of speech are >95% hysterically exaggerating.

Meanwhile, it's good to keep in mind that there are <5% crazies in every group, including chess players and LGBT people. Listening to them is never a good idea.

[0] When you dig down, what you usually find is some minor committee discussing whether they should change the language used in their own bylaws and/or publications. I.e. it's not legislation, nobody is being forced to do anything, and most of these initiatives don't even pass in the first place.

[braveo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

> Examples of Violations

> a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses

[snip]

> And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

[nhaehnle]

Thanks for the link, that's indeed extreme. It's a pity that the original source link is dead.

[talmand]

That's all well and good until the entire university is the safe space.

Also, that entire last paragraph requires a great of assumption and stereotyping on your part.

[Karunamon]

If that were literally all it was about, nobody would have reason to complain. Instead, the concept has expanded out to encompass political views which can be debated in good faith. Supporting certain candidates has resulted in public shaming, if not outright violence.

Do our college students really need to be kept "safe" from mere disagreement?

[throwaway9475]

When "mere disagreement" is something like "I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different" then, uh, yes. E.g., depriving LGBTQ people marriage because of your "religious" beliefs is not a political view. This can be hard to understand if you come from a position where you've never had to deal with any issues like that. But for people in those groups, it's important to have a place where you can be with like-minded people and talk about those issues without someone taking over the conversation and making it about themselves and /their/ group.

[Banthum]

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different"

Quite the opposite. Typically safe space warriors are demanding that people have different rights in public based on their genetics, not the same rights.

E.g. "You're a white man so shut up, I should have a special right to speak over you because of [XYZ]."

Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK4MBzp5YwM

[Ralfp]

> When "mere disagreement" is something like "I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different" then, uh, yes.

Part of maturing is learning how to stand for one's ideas and beliefs, as well as learning how to deal with (bigoted) opposition to those. Isolating yourself, locking yourself in the echo chamber will make you unprepared for dialogue with those outside of it, or worse, will end with you radicalizing because you'll grow up with your standing never contested.

This is also going the other way. If you'll remove yourself from discourse, you will willfully marginalize yourself. How can local population know that LGBT people are living among them and are their friends/relatives/normal folk, if those people will lock themselves up in their safe spaces?

My favorite example when it comes to LGBT is polish activist turned politician, [Robert Biedroń](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Biedro%C5%84), who has spent life being vocal and visible activist for LGBT rights - extremely courageous feat in mostly catholic and conservatist Poland. The culmination of his work was gaining enough popular support to become mayor in 100k large city.

If this guy ran in my city, he'll get my vote. Even if I disagree with 90% of what he says because politically he always aligns himself with socialists and I'm moderate, I believe that what he does for making our society less bigoted is worth every support.

Now ask yourself, how many such Biedrońs will not come to be because they'll close themselves in their small worlds in fear of their feelings being hurt by some bigots?

[braveo]

If you disagree with 90% of his policies, but you vote for him anyway because of his LGBT activism, you're no better than racists could also disagree with 90% of a white man's policies, but still vote for them because their opponent was black.

I know you'll argue against that point, but I mention it not for you, but to put what you said into context for other readers.

[Ralfp]

Actually, I fail to see the point you are making. I'm arguing that people should be active in shaping popular discourse of their societies while honing and validating their opinions as they clash those with other opinions.

Is your argument "oh, but racists are also shaping discourse of their societes"?

[braveo]

like I said, I don't actually expect you to admit to such a horrible way of choosing who to vote for.

My post wasn't for you.

[laughfactory]

I totally agree. Well said.