CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should we have safe spaces?
Should we have safe spaces? Or shouldn’t we bc there’s only two genders/other reasons. A safe space is a concept where a place (usually on a college campus) is put aside for certain people to congregate and be away from the “hate” that society gives them. Usually it is implied that LGBTQ and black people would only be able to use these places.
I believe that societies or groups of people who face religious, LGBT, or racially based discrimination should have an area to convene and receive requisite respect from others when nobody else in the outside world respects them.
Another question: Why would anybody other than persecuted communities need safe spaces?
I believe that societies or groups of people who face religious, LGBT, or racially based discrimination should have an area to convene and receive requisite respect from others when nobody else in the outside world respects them.
"...nobody else in the outside world respects them..." Really?
Nobody? Do you intend the hyperbole, or do you really think these groups are ill-treated by all outsiders?
What are all the behaviors you mean by discrimination?
What are all the behaviors you mean by persecution?
I apologise for the misunderstanding. I intended a hyperbole, in case you were unclear on that.
Next time I will be sure to highlight or bold the phrase so you will be able to differentiate.
If I am aware, your supreme court recently heard a case in which a gay couple was refused a custom designed cake for their wedding, which shouldn't have been a problem.
If I am also aware, there was a KKK rally in Charlottesville, Virginia late last year that promoted white supremacy and hatred towards the unmistakably large African American population in the States.
Do the above examples not fit your definition of discrimination AND persecution?
I apologise for the misunderstanding. I intended a hyperbole, in case you were unclear on that.
You have nothing to apologize for. It is not your fault at all, but a symptom of our times.
I had to ask, because people have different standards, especially those who advocate safe spaces vice those who do not. The safe space concept is a marker that coincides with some pretty big differences in basic assumptions.
Over here there are people who seriously and literally equate Donald Trump with Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler, and who seriously equate Barak Obama with Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ.
As a result, I have a hard time telling when people are writing ironically, being rhetorically hyperbolic for effect, or are expressing a point they believe to be literally true.
Do the above examples not fit your definition of discrimination AND persecution?
I had to ask, again because people have different standards.
Safe space advocates often believe in phenomena called micro-aggressions which ignore the intent of the speaker, and focus on the feelings (or potential feelings) of the audience. I have read statements wherein people assert that people merely hearing things they disagree with is persecution. (e.g., Phil Robertson was accused of both discrimination and persecution for saying he believes homosexuality is a sin, but that he loves all people, and believes God loves all people.
I think that is setting the bar particularly low and degrades the usefulness of the terms, especially when rude, or socially inept are appropriate to only the most extreme (largest?) micro-aggressions.
I see why you picked the examples you did, and I think you are in the part of the mainstream that uses the terms more inclusively.
Personally, I use more specific definitions.
When I use the term discrimination it very particularly means the characteristic (race, sex, religion, etc.) is used as a criteria for participation or access.
When I use the term persecution it very particularly means more than one event that includes impact to one's physical person or property.
By my definitions
I would classify the wedding cake incident as discrimination, but not persecution.
I would classify the KKK rally as racism (and even more lame and pointless than most rallies and demonstrations), but as neither discrimination nor persecution.
On the cake issue. The owner of a shop in the US has the right to refuse service to anyone. This man happened to not like gays. So when he found out that he was to be serving the cake to a gray couple, he decided that he didn’t want to serve them. The only reason it got to Supreme Court is because all of the other courts couldn’t decide on the issue.
If I am also aware, there was a KKK rally in Charlottesville, Virginia late last year that promoted white supremacy and hatred towards the unmistakably large African American population in the States
The Black Lives Matter & Black Panthers' rallies have thousands of people at them calling out anti white obscenities.
You truly are a fool to bring that up, bozo. The KKK not only protested, which is fine, but someone from their group decided it would be lovely to kill a woman counter protesting against the KKK. Can you excuse that?
Do you mean places where people are "safe" from ideas or attitudes they don't like, or disagree with?
Do you mean places where everyone thinks the "safe" people are wonderful, so they don't need to fear criticism or disapproval?
Do you mean places free of bigotry, myopia, and close-mindedness?
There are no such places.
The problem with the concept of a safe space is that it is for people who share an identity, even if that identity is a way of thinking or a belief.
However, people are all individuals, regardless of sharing some single identity, whether it be LGBT, Black, Muslim, Female, or Black Muslim lesbian. Unless they are lobotomized, they will all take their unexamined biases and unavoidable disapprovals into the safe space with them.
People in a safe space for Black Muslim lesbians will still have reasons to criticize or disapprove of each other, or be bigoted against some aspect of each other. Maybe because some are American, and others are Somali, and they have cultural values that conflict.
So make a safe space for each of these sets.
People in a safe space for American Black Muslim lesbians will still have reasons to criticize or disapprove of each other. Maybe some are Shia, and some are Sunni, and they each think the others are heretical in their beliefs, or evil.
So make a safe space for each of these sets.
People in a safe space for American Black Sunni lesbians will still have reasons to criticize or disapprove. Maybe some are Republican, and some are Democrat , and they each think the others are despotic, or foolish and wrong.
So make a safe space for each of these sets.
And on and on until each person is in a safe space all alone, feeling accepted and unchallenged as she treasures the smell of her own farts.
The problem with the concept of a safe space is that it is for people who share an identity, even if that identity is a way of thinking or a belief.
There is probably some truth to this, Marcus. However, you appear to simply assume that shared worldviews or belief systems are a "problem", without even considering that they are often of enormous benefit to society. To illustrate the point one needs only consider shared human faith in science or reason.
You also assume that we should define ourselves in terms of our differences (i.e. as "individuals") rather than by what we all have in common. Human beings are indeed capable of differing from each other in many areas, but the world itself is not. We are only part of the world, and what we believe has very little or no impact upon reality itself. If our understanding is in harmony with reality then it is a direct benefit to our survival. Hence, it is only erroneous belief systems which are problematic.
Individualism is not a valid excuse to be wrong and a safe space which excludes those who are not reasonable or who attempt to distort reality to conform with their own worldview is not a problem. In fact, it is very arguably a solution. A solution to the madness of such things as climate change denial and the belief that the Nazis were on the left.
Individualism is not a valid excuse to be wrong and a safe space which excludes those who are not reasonable or who attempt to distort reality to conform with their own worldview is not a problem. In fact, it is very arguably a solution
This is something weak losers say to feel better about being weak losers. Marxism is an ideology for people who realize they are too stupid and/or lazy to ever amount to anything on their own. Safe spaces are an abomination to evolution. Protect the stupid, weak minded knuckle draggers so that they can continue to breed more people who thousands of years ago would have ended by being eaten.
This is something weak losers say to feel better about being weak losers.
Weak losers come onto Create Debate and say nasty things to get a rise out of others. That's what weak losers do, bronto. They aren't intelligent enough to refute a point, so instead they resort to childlike behaviour like namecalling.
It does not make someone a "weak loser" to expect basic facts to be accepted during a discussion. Why don't you just jog on and find another outlet for your ignorance and your hatred? Go and torture a poor, defenceless animal or something.
You say ......weak losers come onto create debate and say nasty things about others .......
I know you do it all the time you two faced hypocrite when you get hammered in yet another debate , here you are in action resorting in the childlike behaviour you detest in others .........
Number ones words of hate .......
Amusing that you would call anybody else stupid, given that Ireland has a WORLD CLASS reputation for producing retards
Good point. Ironic really that he's so obsessed with race, given that Irishmen are notoriously thicker than wet cement........
So you’re after admitting you’re a nasty , petty child who behaves this way as you’re a loser , confession is apparently good for the soul 🙀🙀🙀
You say ........In fact, it is very arguably a solution. A solution to the madness of such things as climate change denial and the belief that the Nazis were on the left..........
Or maybe you could also include in your list the madness of 9 / 11 conspiracy nutters such as yourself 😳😳😳
Also you have some neck to pompously hold forth on such matters when you brand the Irish retards and claim Jews are scum , what a fucking hypocrite you are
"Safe spaces" are a concoction of the left designed to coddle cupcakes and powder puffs, to their detriment, I might add. How does this prepare students to deal with the real world they are about to enter? It's a huge disservice to the students.
According to the constitution of the country, people have the right to gather at any place to share their ideas, thoughts and opinions without inciting of violence upon them.
There is no need to establishment of seperate safe space for a particular community alone which is a discrimination to other communities as a whole.
This idea will only help to promote doubt and suspicion among other communities as what offensive ideas about them are being discussed in these platforms which makes their entry to be restricted. This creates a furthur division between them.
Rather the communities should gather in public places and discuss ideas and people outside the community should also be able to understand the indiscriminations they are facing.
I don't get it. It's not that I don't agree with having safe spaces, it's that there should be many many spaces all over the campus which are safe anyway. Basically any administrator's office, classroom, dorm room, etc. You shouldn't have to point to a structure on a map and say "there's the safe space".
While I think it's important to have a place you can feel safe to be yourself, I don't think it's necessary to create these places for others. The world isn't a "safe" place, your job doesn't care about you it cares about your work, and safe spaces -in college specifically- give people this thought that they deserve special considerations when they come out to the work force when that's not really the case. Coddling kids should be stopped the moment they go to college. Of course I'm not talking about instances of bullying or actual danger.
Coddling kids should be stopped the moment they go to college.
That is WAAAY too late!
Coddling needs to stop by kindergarten. That is the age people are moved from being almost exclusively with family/friends to being in public institutions like schools.
We cannot afford to have people think anyone else is looking out for their safety. That is why we teach kids as early as possible to look both ways before crossing the street.
The minute we are in public, it stops being about us and our safety or our emotional comfort. The moment we step out our door, our significance decreases and our responsibilities increase.
This needs to start before kindergarten so that it is second nature, and foundational to our worldviews by the time we leave high school.
We cannot have a society full of people expecting to have the world cater to their comfort, or even their needs. If we did, nobody would ever go to the back of the line.
We would end up with a bunch of useless snowflakes who need Play-Dough and puppies when they are disappointed about an election outcome, and a bunch of fascistic twats who want to police people's choice of Halloween costume because of their own mental hang-ups...
By college you are considered an adult which is why I think college. I would think stopping it by kindergarten is WAAAAAYYYY to early.
What you are suggesting is that we coddle kids until they are 18 and then expect them to start acting like adults just because we say it is time to.
Essentially, for 18 years build unrealistic expectations by telling them things like
- -You are special.
- -You deserve things because you want them.
- -Your feelings matter.
- -What you want is important.
And then expect them at age 18 suddenly to adjust to
- -You are neither special nor important.
- -You do not deserve anything you did not personally do, and you probably do not deserve all of that.
- -Your feelings irrelevant.
- -Suck it up, sunshine.
No, it takes a LONG time of training to prepare people to understand what adulthood requires, and to get people into the habits of mind and attitude that are required not to be an insufferable ass to all who meet us.
I am sticking with Kindergarten as the coddle end date.
It depends what one is defining as a "safe space". That is, 'clubs' such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Recovering Drug Addiction 'clinics', spousal/relationship abuse, hyper-family abuse, ect. ect. I would argue always serves a legitimate function whether they are 16, 32, or 59, ect.
Generally AA and college campus safe spaces are not in the same category. I have been to AA and NA meetings, and people are allowed to say the sorts of things that are prohibited in safe spaces in the collegiate sense.
Honesty is the prime rule at an AA meeting. Non-judgmentalism is only second.
Then, you are arguing against a particular sub-set of 'safe spaces' rather than the idea more generally? That is, when taken to an extreme, becomes very unhealthy & counterproductive(?)
Then, you are arguing against a particular sub-set of 'safe spaces' rather than the idea more generally? That is, when taken to an extreme, becomes very unhealthy & counterproductive(?)
Tthe Yale-style safe space, which is oriented toward people hiding from confrontation and uncomfortability, is an exercise in futility, as I pointed out in my initial post on this side.
I am arguing against a particular concept of life and people that asserts that it is anything but disastrous for people to be protected from truths and views they dislike, fear, etc..
The whole AA-style space is oriented particularly and purposefully toward people facing and addressing truths and views they dislike, fear, etc.. (Don't mistake this as an endorsement of 12-steppery, nor solving problems by talking.)
I am arguing against a particular concept of life and people that asserts that it is anything but disastrous for people to be protected from truths and views they dislike, fear, etc..
The whole AA-style space is oriented particularly and purposefully toward people facing and addressing truths and views they dislike, fear, etc..
Yes, I see this is the crucial point. If a group of people with similar issues meet up in a collaborative/supportive effort to face their challenges together (which is empowering and productive) rather than avoid their challenges (which is disempowering), then such a 'safe space' is valuable for the members.
Why do you even converse with that imbecile? I just don't get it.
In actual fact, you are both very similar to each other, so perhaps that's it. Neither of you has any understanding of the basic tenets of debate, yet you both throw walls of illegible text at each other because you are both acting under the same false assumption that whoever can write the most irrationally complex gobbledegook therefore wins the argument.
Similarly, you appear to both be under the false assumption that quality is relative to quantity. There may be a relationship, in fact, but if so then it is inverse square.
Were either or both of you not suffering from various degrees (his being worse) of the exact same Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you would come to the conclusion that you should simplify your arguments wherever possible to ensure communication is strong and the argument can be won or lost on its actual merits. You are literally doing the opposite of what you should logically be doing in a bid to outdo each other.
No no, not til they are 18. As they get older they must gain more responsibilities. They also must learn to respect others but understand that there is strife in this world and they must overcome obstacles. I'd say around....oh maybe 8'ish is when it's time to start understanding this, but not during Kindergarten. No one deserves things because they are special.
There could be safe spaces for heterosexual male misogynist White Christian plumbers, which would have the exact same problem inherent in focus on group identity.
No, of course not. To say college campuses should host "safe spaces" to shield students from different ideas and beliefs. So, the byproduct of this is a bunch of liberals who think their ideas are the best ideas ever conceived. Then, when a conservative or even an intelligent liberal confronts them on their argument, they run with their tail between their legs. To me, safe spaces are a very light anti-integration program.
No, of course not. To say college campuses should host "safe spaces" to shield students from different ideas and beliefs.
I'm not sure you understand what a "safe space" is. According to Google, we can define it as:-
a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.
So, in other words, it is not ideas that "safe spaces" do not tolerate, but rather the typical harassment and hate speech we see coming every day from the American right. It is a place where you can go if you are gay, or black, or Muslim, or liberal, without having to deal with the nonsense of people like yourself who hide their bigotry and hatred behind false language.
I'm not sure you even understand what a "safe space" is.
No, I know exactly what a safe space is now, and what it used to be. Safe spaces used to be what they're defined as; you could go to a safe space and know you wouldn't be discriminated against. Now, though, safe spaces aren't needed. Why? Because everywhere where a safe space is located, is a safe space itself. It's interesting to me because you always see liberal safe spaces, but you never see safe spaces for conservatives who are actually being discriminated against and attacked.
without having to deal with the nonsense of people like yourself
First, I don't see why you had to include gays, blacks, and Muslims like I hate those people. I don't care what you are, as long as you're contributing to society. Second, what nonsense? I can recognize my previous definition of a safe space was a bit over the top, but that's about it for me.
who hide their bigotry and hatred behind false language.
Conservatives aren't bigots. A bigot is defined as "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". Just because we disagree with liberals, doesn't make us intolerant of their beliefs. Minorities do not represent the majority.
No, I know exactly what a safe space is now, and what it used to be. Safe spaces used to be what they're defined as; you could go to a safe space and know you wouldn't be discriminated against. Now, though, safe spaces aren't needed. Why?
Because we are living in a magical utopia where there is no discrimination?
Because everywhere where a safe space is located, is a safe space itself.
Wtf? I really don't understand the point you are trying to make I'm afraid.
It's interesting to me because you always see liberal safe spaces, but you never see safe spaces for conservatives who are actually being discriminated against and attacked.
Well, that's because your premise would appear to contradict your conclusion. If Conservatives were the ones always being discriminated against and attacked, then they would have been the ones to invent safe spaces.
No, there's still discrimination, but instances are few and far between.
This comment is just so obnoxiously inaccurate and naive that I am literally staggered by it.
In the modern United States, gay black men are extremely likely to experience intersectional discrimination. In the United States, the children of gay African-American men have a poverty rate of 52 percent, the highest in the country. Gay African-American men in partnerships are also six times more likely to live in poverty than gay white male couples.
America, a country where nine in every ten people is religious, does not discriminate against gay people?
I didn't say discrimination doesn't happen. I said discrimination is very rare.
the children of gay African-American men have a poverty rate of 52 percent, the highest in the country
Let me tell you something: correlation doesn't equate to causation. This is like me saying "Well dogs are hairy and dogs don't have jobs, so unemployment is making dogs hairy. Just because gay African-American men are gay, doesn't mean they aren't good at managing money.
I didn't say discrimination doesn't happen. I said discrimination is very rare.
I am fully aware what you said, but you do not seem to be aware that it is completely false, despite having the evidence that it is false shoved into your face.
I believe you said you were going to leave this argument.
It is not an argument. It was an argument when you were saying stupid things, it was an argument when I disproved them, but now it is simply you illustrating your weak and childish character by refusing to acknowledge it.
In the modern United States, gay black men are extremely likely to experience intersectional discrimination
Let me tell you something: correlation doesn't equate to causation.
But very often it does. For example, if I punch you in the face for being an idiot, the correlation between the pain in your face and my fist equates to causation.
Now, let me tell you something. You are saying stupid and false things, and trying to back them up with random philosophical platitudes because you are a moron with a big mouth and little up top.
You are saying stupid and false things, and trying to back them up with random philosophical platitudes because you are a moron with a big mouth and little up top.