Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Rolepgeek on November 12, 2016, 12:02:38 am

Quote from: Urist McScoopbeard on November 11, 2016, 11:56:23 pm

(on the safe space stuff that is)

See now, that's where my issue with the concept of it. You're just relabelling common decency and giving to people as a tool to say "oh, no no no, you can't do that to me here I'm X/Y/Z!" When in reality the racists/bigots/homophobes will break your "safe space" and shit all over you and the normal people will just be like, "Okay, wasn't planning on being an asshole today anyways."

Well...no. You're making this like it's an identity thing. It's not. It's a location/area thing. 'You can't do that to me, in this place, and the reason why is that my friends and I will kick you out if you do, or call the cops.' It's a designated place where people can work together to keep each other safe. It's not an 'all the time everywhere' thing. It's a commonly negotiated area where there are rules about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

Not just anywhere can be a church, and some people are deeply offended by the very idea of one.

On a college? Not appropriate. The college should have rules to forbid violence regardless. That's what campus police are supposed to help with. (But admittedly, not always).  Just like it would get absurd real fast to have 50 different churches to different gods on a multiracial and multi culturally attended university, insisting on putting a "safe space" there, in a place intended for study and learning, is just bonkers.

Now, if you want to run one in the dorm, and say "hey, if you have trouble you can crash at my place." That's different, but the school shouldn't recognize it as something special just to stroke egos.

I'm not talking about a large portion of the college. But something like a club, except with rules in place? In places where sexual assault is actually fairly prevalent? It's larger than just one-to-one interaction, wierd, that's the point. It's often a place for discussion. It's just a place where people can rightfully expect not to be called a fag for holding hands with their boyfriend. The 'safe space' in this instance is next to the health center, or it's in the Pride Center, just like the churches are just outside campus as well, as it's a public university. But this isn't a church, it just fills a similar role, with the difference being that LGBTQ groups tend to be welcoming of any 'denomination', and you don't get to choose your 'denomination'. It's a combination of support group, literal place of refuge (support groups are groups, not places, that usually meet as specified times, not ready to be had as needed), and designated place to discuss issues relevant to the group.

Thank you for sharing that passage, by the way, wierd. Was not previously aware of that bible passage.

Actually an awful lot of them seem to be saying, 'if you disagree with us at all you're a horrible person who needs to be locked up' instead of even being even slightly tolerant.  To me that is fundamentally violating the spirit of tolerance and equal treatment.

@ RPG: I have no problem with people wanting to feel comfortable, but they aren't in any way shape or form guaranteed it by anything.  I choose to be respectful of other people, but I will not be forced into it by anything.

It's not about forcing you to be respectful, per se, in this context, it's about being respectful in that space, and that your other option is to leave that space. That's why it's supposed to be relatively small. 'This space' does not allow people in it who are choosing to not be respectful. It's restrictive on the basis of actions, so if you want to come in, you can (under normal circumstances), you just need to abide by the rules, much like any other private establishment or residence.

That's why it's not just about declaration. It's about a group of people deciding to use a space and help keep each protected in that space, so that people can feel safe in it. It's a means to be able to say 'this space? You are safe in it. We will all make sure of that.'

Good people versus bad people is not a binary as simple as that. It's not just a matter of 'they won't give a fuck'. If you have a dozen people and they're by themselves, and you can lock the door and call the cops, they'll give a fuck, and usually they'll fuck off when they wouldn't otherwise. There's a primal part of your brain that can respect the basic math of 'outnumbered 12 to 1'.

I get that you guys think people should be exposed to the world, and not coddled or whatever lest they become unable to ever deal with it, and there's a grain of truth in that, but that's not how they're used, most of the time. They're used as temporary respites when the world becomes overwhelming. Air tanks they can breath from every once in a while. When you say you hate safe spaces, the people who use them that way (which is, at least, how I've seen them used, though I've also seen them used as ways to escape shitty parents for a while without just living on the street or hanging out at random clubs), they see you taking away their air masks. Holding their head under water for just that little bit longer, they can take it, right? They have to learn to swim at some point, after all. Why not the hard way?

Safe spaces are an additional option for people. They do not reduce your ability to do stuff in any way other than maybe making it so the people you might interact with (though if they're really staying in that echo chamber they wouldn't interact with you...) are more...I dunno. Whatever it is you think they do to make people unable to deal with the world. Usually the ones I've seen try to teach effective coping mechanisms, rather than to just stay in the safe space forever.

Don't forget: this isn't something limited or new to the social justice movement. It's just only recently gotten powerful enough to manifest it, relatively speaking. Tribalism, othering, groupthink, echo chambers, these are a part of the human condition. We're built to be in tribes.

Criptfiend, when was the last time Gay conversion therapy was used in a way that involved torture? And I don't mean psychological shenanigans unless it's like full on 'YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON' stuff. Read a bit about it and most of that stuff is illegal now. The gay conversion camps are like weird Freudian things at worst, most of the time, from what I could tell. Not 'Okay after archery is electroshock time!'

Bringing up how something used to be practiced as evidence for why it's evil now isn't all that great for credibility. Disease research used to involve infecting minorities without their consent or knowledge and observing how they deteriorated without treatment. Psychotherapy in general used to involve electroshock therapy.

@NullForceOmega: The solution is to use a different term for the corrupted, aggressive sense of the concept. Bubble works well. Continue to use safe space for legitimate safe spaces, and people will (hopefully) realize that you respect the concept, but don't like the way people are abusing it. Which seems to be true. And is also more likely to foster discussion on the issue, because if you dislike all types of safe spaces, (unfortunately) some people will often consider any further input on your part as worthless.

A forcible intrusion into a private space, can be an opportunity to understand.

Say bottle thrower barges in and makes a scene.

The instinct is to eject him. This is divisive. On principle, it should be avoided except where mortal harm is imminent.

Instead, make him part of the discussion. Get his views straight from the horse's mouth. Don't navel gaze and imagine stawmen, when you have the real thing right there.

Typically, bullies cannot handle lack of reprisal this way. They often flee in terror.


@Wolfhunter: The idea, I believe, is that you don't do that in church. You shouldn't do it at all, ideally, but you certainly don't do that in the house of God. Any house of God. Again, not anywhere, preferably, that's really not acceptable behavior (seriously I've had a whiskey bottle thrown near me when biking (not for anti-gay reasons, pretty sure, just people being stupid) and it shattered and if it had actually been on the bike lane instead of a large patch of gravel off to the side of road (outside a fucking elementary school), I very easily could've ridden over it, popped a tire, and skidded on glass shards. Traffic was heavy enough I couldn't just steer away from it, either.

The reason, is because they suddenly see self in that twisted mirror. Not a monster. It frightens them.

Safe spaces do not operate purely off of exclusion. They operate off of a code of conduct that must be followed, much like a gentleman's club might. Or a nightclub. And when possible, I would agree with you, talking to people works far better. But if someone is causing direct harm, psychological or otherwise, the first priority is to minimize that harm, whether it be by calming down the person who caused the intrusion and having a discussion with them, or by ejecting said individual from the premises.

You're also not supposed to punch anyone in a church, or give them death threats. But you may come in. Most places I've seen are like that. Anyone can come in and learn or hang around if they want to (with the exclusion of, like, stalkers and restraining orders but I think we all agree that's reasonable(or I hope so?)). But you are not permitted to attack people in there, or make them feel unsafe.

And I use the word unsafe, not uncomfortable. Unsafe is when you feel you are in personal danger. Uncomfortable is when you aren't familiar with or enjoying what's happening. The person being in there at all probably makes them feel uncomfortable.


@Criptfiend: He was probably referring back to my post. Speaking of...

@wierd: I apologize, I can see that I was unclear. When I asked "How does it end?", I meant in the manner of 'how do we cause the sliding into the twilight zone that you described to end?' I know that society continually evolves and changes, which is why I asked how you saw events unfolding from that point in society as a whole. I believe that bubbles are good to pop, but I also believe that the opposing side has it's own bubbles, and that unless they are both popped, little will be accomplished. If only one is popped, on either side, neither will really come to an understanding with the other.

@Dozebom: Snark and reassertion that 'we are correct, remember?' doesn't help much with where the discussion is at now. I like how mellow this is. It's a nice change. Although I don't know if the specific discussion topic is really relevant to politics per se.

Thank you, MSH, for that wonderful addition, that was incredibly helpful and necessary, not at all motivated by crueler urges...Please don't. >.>

On the EC:

Top 100 cities are less than 20% of the US' population.

Quote

Actually the theoretical amount of votes needed to win the electoral college is like 23%

And that is with only 2 contestants.

It's absurdly unlikely to happen, but the math is done here.
https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=4m19s

UXLZ, official city limits are often sporadic and inaccurate. Take a look at the top 10 metropolitan statistical areas instead.

@EnigmaticHat: There's a difference between calling for civility and telling everyone to stop arguing, for the record.

Quote from: Urist McScoopbeard on November 11, 2016, 06:18:06 pm

Safe spaces are bullshit, and let me tell you why. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of sexuality or religion or what-have-you anywhere. I fuckin' see this behavior all the time, people want to hide behind terms and words to avoid confrontation and it's fucking bullshit, if someone discriminates against you go get the cops, beat the shit out of them, or fuck off. Looking down your nose at them and boldly declaring that "this is a safe space" does nothing but aggravate one party and give the other party a trump card (no pun intended, but gladly welcomed) to abuse freely instead of standing up for themselves with logical argument and human integrity.

It's NOT unreasonable to want to have a place you can be yourself. That's a lot of what makes America great already: those places exist. What bothers me is telling me I can't criticize someone just because they're part of certain groups.

So, someone doesnt want to associate with someone and the proper response is "get a cop to beat the shit out of them."

Love and tollerance amiright

Where the hell did you get 'doesn't want to associate with someone'?

If someone doesn't want to associate with you, they don't get to have the pleasure of your company.
If someone refuses to hire you on a basis unrelated to your ability to fulfill the job requirements, due to pre-existing prejudice, that's fucked up. Yeah, it hurts them, a little. Having an employee who's slightly worse at their job is not as big of an impact as not having a job, in a capitalist society, especially if you're poor in the first place.
If someone starts using slurs, you tell them to fuck off if you think you're able to, or get someone bigger to tell them for you if you're worried they might try hurting you if you do it yourself.
And finally, those were three different statements, not combined. "Go get the cops", as in, report them. "Beat the shit out of them", as in, confront them. "Fuck off", as in, ignore them and (probably) leave.

Rather than doing the exact same thing you are angry and frustrated with your 'idealized' opponents(we all have 'idealized' versions of 'the opposition' or 'the enemy' or what-have-you to use as models for how they would respond) for, take a second and try to steelman, instead of strongman. Benefit of the doubt is a wonderful thing for fostering cooperation and trust.

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.

So, a. we do legislate morality, when normal moral practices fail. That's why things like, oh, killing people, or theft, or death threats, are all punishable by law. As well as stalking, vandalism, and fraud. Fraud in particular seems like an excellent case to compare. If someone cheats people, just don't do business with them. Why even bother prosecuting fraud? It'll be taken care of naturally, after all, since no one will trust them anymore.

That's before getting into cases where it's widespread, which in more than a few parts of the country, racism is. It's present a little bit, just about everywhere, that's the human condition and to some extent the cultural one, but when you can't get a job because most of the business owners don't want to hire a black guy? And you can say 'well then get a job with the rest'. But finding a job can be hard enough in a lot of those parts of the country, since they tend to be the parts that aren't well-off economically speaking. 40% of your options going out the window? Well, first off, by game theory and economic principles, that puts you in a worse bargaining position, and second off, in practical terms, that makes it much more difficult to find a job. Contrary to popular belief, it's not just hard work that determines whether you have a job.

And that's before we get into the whole 'imperfect information' factor of economics, where we don't always know if the person we're hiring is sexist/racist and will harass/belittle other employees at work! We don't know if the shop owner doesn't have any black employees because that's just how it worked out due to random chance or because they didn't want to risk having something stolen, and they think the best way to do that is not to hire any of those colored folks.

Trust is a two-way street, dammit, and cooperation beats defection in the long run.

Finally: You can hurt someone in far more ways than physical, but just because there aren't bruises doesn't mean it's okay, or should be okay.

Quote from: Frumple on November 11, 2016, 06:48:19 pm

... well yeah. That's where the legislation comes in.

And again, not always particularly viable. Markets aren't an unlimited resource, nor businesses that will sell to them.

So you want the government to be powerful enough to punish dissidence for not conforming to your morality

I want the government to be powerful enough to defend me from people whose morality makes me an evil person who deserves whatever they get.

All men are created equal

So all men can be with who they want when they want

Would you like me to force say a jew to hire a nazi? Of course you wouldn't.

There is a slight modicum of difference in how much control you can exert over those two things. Judaism is a faith, but it's also treated as an ethnicity. Nazi-ism is something you can choose not to be. Being born female, being born black, being trans, being born/becoming gay? These are not things you can control. That last two there's scientific evidence for how it happens, even (partially genetic, but largely biological processes to do with hormones during gestation).

You want this thread locked, Lagslayer?

You think it's a farce for not being allowed to be an asshole?

Really?

Dozebom didn't even imply half of what you say he did (I double-checked between his post and yours to make sure), none of it directed at you, and that's the biggest reason we avoid direct insults. Because if it's indirect, we can all go about our lives, not assuming that anything anyone else has said that could possibly be an insult to anything we support is intended to be an insult to us. And then we can have a productive conversation, because the only way for flame wars to be productive is when Donald Trump does them. And you are not the Donald.

NullForceOmega, do you really think that Dozebom saying 'I think people are doing wrong and bad things, and that they've supported a bigot' is on the same level? Is saying someone's willing to support a bigot the equivalent of saying they're an asshole, now? Because he didn't put that meaning there. You did.

We don't attack fellow forumites. You can disagree, you can and likely will do so vehemently, in fact. You do not get to be an asshole for that belief. Not even when you're calling someone out on being an asshole. Doing the right thing even if other people don't is what makes one a good person. Being respectful when other people aren't is important, because nothing gets accomplished by attacking each other. Except maybe getting the thread shut down because Toady doesn't want his forums becoming toxic. You wanna be a rebel and show how much the establishment is all a lie and a farce, do it somewhere else.

Hell, let's suppose you're right for a second, and this is a farce. But if this is a farce, this is my goddamned farce, and my friend's goddamned farce, and you don't get to tear it down without our permission. This ain't the government. 'Corruption' doesn't influence legal procedure and legislature here. So you don't get to attack people for the purpose of exposing it, when all it's gonna do is reduce the quality of discussion, increase the hostility posters show each other, and cause us all to be less capable of changing our beliefs. It's called cooperation, and it is one of the only ways to get people to change.