Not surprised the against side won, they essentially agreed that ‘safe spaces’ as they are usually conceptualized and actualized are not ok, and simply defended the right for students to be able to form clubs with like minded people (of course that’s ok....freedom of association) and defending the need for students to have their dorm room not be invaded much as everyone else doesn’t have their backyard invaded. The only point of disagreement was never really countered head on which was other public spaces on campus and particularly weather the classroom is or is not a safe space.
Safe spaces are useless on the most basic part of the argument: segregation is bad (South Africa) and you can separate people by race, religion, sexual orientation etc all you like and it will never assure they wont fight among themselves. Gays still come in different colours/nationalities/religions/political views etc... Its impossible to insure safety by separation, this also assumes all the different people that dont belong are the enemy creating division. Not to mention perfect opportunity for bulling and exclusion. I am from Portugal and have lived in France+UK if I had stayed in Portugal nice and safe I would not have grown at all. Sure it was hard to learn the languages and deal with racism but now its easy, specially racism cos I know how to deal with it. I also used to think Muslims were bad people until I met loads in France cultivating good friends + learning about their culture that changed my view on the all race. We are already divided and this will create even more divide in our countries not to mention all this is caused by feminism wanting to create a "feelings" based society abolishing all masculinity.
Campuses should be a place where emotional harm can occur. If you can’t engage in debate (which in reality, is having conflicting views put into your face) you don’t deserve or need to be at a University. you can’t expect rights without responsibility.
How did free-speech become an intellectual debate? The fact it has to be debated, diminishes free speech. The debate is not and has never been whether offending somebody is free speech. You have the right to offend, end of story.
How these events have yet to reach 1M subscribers and a quarter million views each yet just boggles my mind. Thank you IntelligenceSquared Debates for all your hard work and a hat tip to the thoughtful viewers you do have right now. May you grow, and grow fast, the sooner the better.
Poor performances all around, and the debate revolved around definitions way too much. In reality, "safe spaces" is a cudgel, it's a hammer wielded against views you disagree with. It's such a nasty rhetorical trick: you frame it as though the other aggressor you, made you feel unsafe, and so the weight of the administration has to come down on them.
I think both sides should read/watch Jonathan Haidt. No disrespect to the debaters, but to me, the sociologists and psychologists are the most compelling voices on this debate.
They didn’t discuss that there’s a venue requirement for free speech. No free speech advocates think a klansman should be able to interrupt a Jewish group meeting. This is about blanket restrictions on speech regarding certain topics on campus.
The only "safe space" you have a right to is your home and your mind . . . I think the side that was against the motion befuddled the whole dialogue with a definition of "safe spaces" that was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too broad . . . le sigh . . .
I agree, both sides were essentially saying the same thing. They should have invited an against side that was more radical in their view, supported censorship and such. That would have been more fun.
Abv: Since students live on a public campus, the campus is a mixed space (a limited public forum) with both public spaces for speakers and a private (safe) spaces for residents.
The “for” side should have argued that because the term safe space has a nebulous definition many student don’t know what they are allowed to say so they just avoid the risk of getting into trouble and instead keep their ideas to themselves. For example, say a dorm is a safe space. Many students may not know what this means so they refrain from sharing controversial ideas in order to avoid getting into trouble. Moreover, many individuals tasked with monitoring safe spaces and enforcing protection from certain offensive speech surely take this role too far due to confusion about what their responsibility is. My point is the fact that the debaters couldn’t even agree on a definition of safe spaces sheds light on why they cause speech moderators and would-be speakers to suppress valuable ideas.
This just seemed really poorly debated. Sometimes IQ squared does a bad job of recruiting the right people to debate. Christina Hoff Sommers would have been fantastic. Jordan Peterson? Eric or Brett Weinstein? Even someone from Turning Point USA or YAF. The pro team didn’t seem to really capture the issue. Please IQ2 - get out of your safe space and recruit those who really understand and are equally passionate about the topic.
1:06:35 - " . . . aggressive and critical opinions . . . "_ The _only_ aggressive and critical opinions I've seen on campuses all come from the left side of the political spectrum . . .
Demarcus Brown exactly! And it’s clearly intentional. Same thing happened in China during the cultural revolution. Same thing happened in Iran in the 1979 revolution, same with the Leninists. The formula has always been the same... weaken the youth mind, then do as you wish.
They talk about College Students, free speech, and psychological harm. They're adults. Aren't they adults? Aren't they legal age, 18 year old, have to fill out a draft card? Childhood is over. If they are immature, at 18, blame their parents. But adults have to accept other opinions might hurt us. Adults deal with it, they don't run away from it. You want to teach them to be adults, teach them toughen up. Stop encouraging cowards.
40 mins in and this is a waste of a debate. One side is debating the term "safe space as a movement to censor", and the other is debating "places to be safe should exist." Two different things. They can't even agree on what they are debating. This is a skip, guys. I'm five minutes away from pushing "next."
Safe spaces are useless, segregation is bad (South Africa). Separate people by race, religion, sexual orientation etc, it will never work. Gays come in different colours/nationalities/religions/political views etc...They would still fight (just not on sexuality) Its impossible to insure safety by separation. It assumes people that dont belong are the enemy creating more division. Not to mention perfect opportunity for bulling and exclusion. I am from Portugal and have lived in France+UK if I had stayed in Portugal, nice and safe, I would not have grown at all. Sure it was hard, learn the languages and deal with racism but not anymore, specially racism cos I know how to deal with it. I used to think Muslims were bad people. I met loads in France cultivating good friendships + learning about their culture, it changed my view on the all race. We are divided and this will create even more divide.. Where did sticks and stones might break my bones stop working ????
We have to educate people that words ONLY have power over you if you allow them. This is where we need to focus, desensitize people using reason, develop compassion for those who feel the need to attempt to denigrate others, imagine the mind they have to live with. How often have you heard others despair saying they can't live with themselves, WHO is it THEY can't live with it seems their are two personalities themselves and the one they can't live with. Begin to emphasis that happiness is not something we should give others permission to rob us of using words... Another point is we need to bring focus to the human condition and the problems that require solving. We need use our intelligence to leverage technology to ameliorate crime, corruption, poverty, hunger, and ensure access to energy, clean food/water, medical care..etc. I would also say that as with all fields of human endeavor we need to quell BS(Bad Science;) and research what factors produce happiness and the flourishing of human, animal & environmental well-being and what factors produce aberrant behavior behavior that causes others(human & non-human) to suffer unnecessarily. The end outcome of 'anger' being responded with more anger is violence and unnecessary physical suffering, this can't be solved without love and compassion.
So the audience knows how the debate will be scored in advance. If someone wants to see a side with, they can purposely cast their vote in the opposition first, then change it later. I'm really certain that that many people on such a divisive issue just completely changed their minds. I'm ashamed of my generation we even debate over hurt feelings like this.
i was kinda surprised that the example of a student beeing interrupted in class is a topic for a safe space. if a student is "rude" to another by interrupting, the teacher/moderator is called for stopping that, in ANY debate as far as i'm aware. that has nothing to do with safe spaces, its just rude. a safe space is defined by EXCLUDING others participation, a classroom can NEVER be that, EVER, as i expect every classroom to be under a teachers supervision anyways. looking at this debate from the outside sometimes triggers concern when we talk about "black houses" like there is a need to seperate colors, ideas, culture from eachother to "gain relieve and feel sheltered". are you telling me your students on campus feel under siege all the time and need a trench to retreat to? what a strange concept, i would like to hear more voices from campuses on that topic. have universities in the US become this toxic? i suppose if you live on campus you have a room you can go to and close the door? can others barge in and shower you with insults? what do i not understand here?
The president guy started off well in opening remarks, but dang... he really got off the rails quickly. I don't know where he was going with that #metoo-esque rant.
A pointless debate indeed. If you don't go to University to learn how to adapt and have the intellectual mechanisms to deal with a world full of people who will disagree with you, offend you and outright annoy you then I don't know why you bother going. Sorry "snowflakes" but life is hard and full of people who will piss you off...you have to be learn and foster how to deal with that if you're going to survive never mind flourish.
I feel like the entirety of the debate missed the mark. Everything the "Against" team said was common-sensical, but was divorced from the reality of activism on college campuses. Professors and administration have been in a very real power struggle with their students, from Evergreen to the Ivy League. Somehow this didn't come up at all, which is a shame.
This was such a farce of a debate. If you do not agree on a term, discard the term and debate the idea that you hold that it represents. The side against is either insultingly ignorant or is blatantly trying to pull a bait and switch. I felt unsafe just listening to this!
Confusing "safe" with "non-threatening" is very dangerous is a market place if ideas. School and university has never been "non-threatening", it's terrifying. Campuses are pretty "safe" on the other hand, as assaults happen very rarely.
Starts at 11:05 . . .
Thank you xx
scrolled down looking for your post :)
Guy from the 80's
Don’t know what happens I think it depends which phone I use to reply. I only wrote thank you for posting the time it started.
Windsor Castle lol
Not surprised the against side won, they essentially agreed that ‘safe spaces’ as they are usually conceptualized and actualized are not ok, and simply defended the right for students to be able to form clubs with like minded people (of course that’s ok....freedom of association) and defending the need for students to have their dorm room not be invaded much as everyone else doesn’t have their backyard invaded. The only point of disagreement was never really countered head on which was other public spaces on campus and particularly weather the classroom is or is not a safe space.
Given the location is here in Canada I'm surprised no one raised the Lindsey Sheppard situation or Jordan Peterson for that matter.
The side against the motion actually defined "safety" as "a feeling of not belonging". That is hot garbage.
Safe spaces are useless on the most basic part of the argument: segregation is bad (South Africa) and you can separate people by race, religion, sexual orientation etc all you like and it will never assure they wont fight among themselves. Gays still come in different colours/nationalities/religions/political views etc... Its impossible to insure safety by separation, this also assumes all the different people that dont belong are the enemy creating division. Not to mention perfect opportunity for bulling and exclusion. I am from Portugal and have lived in France+UK if I had stayed in Portugal nice and safe I would not have grown at all. Sure it was hard to learn the languages and deal with racism but now its easy, specially racism cos I know how to deal with it. I also used to think Muslims were bad people until I met loads in France cultivating good friends + learning about their culture that changed my view on the all race. We are already divided and this will create even more divide in our countries not to mention all this is caused by feminism wanting to create a "feelings" based society abolishing all masculinity.
Very true. @@luisabrunhosa2325
Campuses should be a place where emotional harm can occur. If you can’t engage in debate (which in reality, is having conflicting views put into your face) you don’t deserve or need to be at a University. you can’t expect rights without responsibility.
How did free-speech become an intellectual debate? The fact it has to be debated, diminishes free speech. The debate is not and has never been whether offending somebody is free speech. You have the right to offend, end of story.
There was nothing discussed here.... they both were just going back and forth without any confrontations. This debate was a safe space
How about a debate and discussion about affirmative action rather than banning “muttering” about it.
Censorship = the problem and not the solution
How these events have yet to reach 1M subscribers and a quarter million views each yet just boggles my mind. Thank you IntelligenceSquared Debates for all your hard work and a hat tip to the thoughtful viewers you do have right now. May you grow, and grow fast, the sooner the better.
Poor performances all around, and the debate revolved around definitions way too much. In reality, "safe spaces" is a cudgel, it's a hammer wielded against views you disagree with. It's such a nasty rhetorical trick: you frame it as though the other aggressor you, made you feel unsafe, and so the weight of the administration has to come down on them.
12:23 When you hit the juul but dont wanna cough and look like a noob.
I think both sides should read/watch Jonathan Haidt. No disrespect to the debaters, but to me, the sociologists and psychologists are the most compelling voices on this debate.
They didn’t discuss that there’s a venue requirement for free speech. No free speech advocates think a klansman should be able to interrupt a Jewish group meeting. This is about blanket restrictions on speech regarding certain topics on campus.
Takeaway: Don't go to Wesleyan...
The only "safe space" you have a right to is your home and your mind . . . I think the side that was against the motion befuddled the whole dialogue with a definition of "safe spaces" that was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too broad . . . le sigh . . .
And campuses are _not_ homes - they are campuses . . .
Just don't understand how the organizer initiate this debate. Don't they agree on what to debate? I don't see any debate.
I agree, both sides were essentially saying the same thing. They should have invited an against side that was more radical in their view, supported censorship and such. That would have been more fun.
I wish they gave more thought to the wording of the motions.
Abv: Since students live on a public campus, the campus is a mixed space (a limited public forum) with both public spaces for speakers and a private (safe) spaces for residents.
The “for” side should have argued that because the term safe space has a nebulous definition many student don’t know what they are allowed to say so they just avoid the risk of getting into trouble and instead keep their ideas to themselves. For example, say a dorm is a safe space. Many students may not know what this means so they refrain from sharing controversial ideas in order to avoid getting into trouble. Moreover, many individuals tasked with monitoring safe spaces and enforcing protection from certain offensive speech surely take this role too far due to confusion about what their responsibility is. My point is the fact that the debaters couldn’t even agree on a definition of safe spaces sheds light on why they cause speech moderators and would-be speakers to suppress valuable ideas.
This just seemed really poorly debated. Sometimes IQ squared does a bad job of recruiting the right people to debate. Christina Hoff Sommers would have been fantastic. Jordan Peterson? Eric or Brett Weinstein? Even someone from Turning Point USA or YAF. The pro team didn’t seem to really capture the issue. Please IQ2 - get out of your safe space and recruit those who really understand and are equally passionate about the topic.
1:06:35 - " . . . aggressive and critical opinions . . . "_
The _only_ aggressive and critical opinions I've seen on campuses all come from the left side of the political spectrum . . .
They breed the worst form of danger, weakness.
Demarcus Brown exactly! And it’s clearly intentional. Same thing happened in China during the cultural revolution. Same thing happened in Iran in the 1979 revolution, same with the Leninists. The formula has always been the same... weaken the youth mind, then do as you wish.
They talk about College Students, free speech, and psychological harm. They're adults. Aren't they adults? Aren't they legal age, 18 year old, have to fill out a draft card? Childhood is over. If they are immature, at 18, blame their parents. But adults have to accept other opinions might hurt us. Adults deal with it, they don't run away from it. You want to teach them to be adults, teach them toughen up. Stop encouraging cowards.
I'm really impressed with the intelligence of all these debaters, even if the debate itself wasn't very conclusive
The beasts fear intelligence as beasts will only burn in it.
Or we could just respect everyone everywhere.
1:23:30 The Winner is
40 mins in and this is a waste of a debate. One side is debating the term "safe space as a movement to censor", and the other is debating "places to be safe should exist." Two different things. They can't even agree on what they are debating. This is a skip, guys. I'm five minutes away from pushing "next."
Safe spaces are useless, segregation is bad (South Africa). Separate people by race, religion, sexual orientation etc, it will never work. Gays come in different colours/nationalities/religions/political views etc...They would still fight (just not on sexuality) Its impossible to insure safety by separation.
It assumes people that dont belong are the enemy creating more division. Not to mention perfect opportunity for bulling and exclusion.
I am from Portugal and have lived in France+UK if I had stayed in Portugal, nice and safe, I would not have grown at all. Sure it was hard, learn the languages and deal with racism but not anymore, specially racism cos I know how to deal with it. I used to think Muslims were bad people. I met loads in France cultivating good friendships + learning about their culture, it changed my view on the all race. We are divided and this will create even more divide.. Where did sticks and stones might break my bones stop working ????
We have to educate people that words ONLY have power over you if you allow them. This is where we need to focus, desensitize people using reason, develop compassion for those who feel the need to attempt to denigrate others, imagine the mind they have to live with. How often have you heard others despair saying they can't live with themselves, WHO is it THEY can't live with it seems their are two personalities themselves and the one they can't live with.
Begin to emphasis that happiness is not something we should give others permission to rob us of using words...
Another point is we need to bring focus to the human condition and the problems that require solving. We need use our intelligence to leverage technology to ameliorate crime, corruption, poverty, hunger, and ensure access to energy, clean food/water, medical care..etc.
I would also say that as with all fields of human endeavor we need to quell BS(Bad Science;) and research what factors produce happiness and the flourishing of human, animal & environmental well-being and what factors produce aberrant behavior behavior that causes others(human & non-human) to suffer unnecessarily. The end outcome of 'anger' being responded with more anger is violence and unnecessary physical suffering, this can't be solved without love and compassion.
20min in until it starts!
Here's a question, why are these adults, who are entering college, so emotionally fragile?
Because Everyone Failed Them.
So the audience knows how the debate will be scored in advance. If someone wants to see a side with, they can purposely cast their vote in the opposition first, then change it later. I'm really certain that that many people on such a divisive issue just completely changed their minds. I'm ashamed of my generation we even debate over hurt feelings like this.
8:04 why did you zoom in on a dude picking his nose
i was kinda surprised that the example of a student beeing interrupted in class is a topic for a safe space. if a student is "rude" to another by interrupting, the teacher/moderator is called for stopping that, in ANY debate as far as i'm aware.
that has nothing to do with safe spaces, its just rude.
a safe space is defined by EXCLUDING others participation, a classroom can NEVER be that, EVER, as i expect every classroom to be under a teachers supervision anyways.
looking at this debate from the outside sometimes triggers concern when we talk about "black houses" like there is a need to seperate colors, ideas, culture from eachother to "gain relieve and feel sheltered". are you telling me your students on campus feel under siege all the time and need a trench to retreat to?
what a strange concept, i would like to hear more voices from campuses on that topic. have universities in the US become this toxic?
i suppose if you live on campus you have a room you can go to and close the door? can others barge in and shower you with insults? what do i not understand here?
The president guy started off well in opening remarks, but dang... he really got off the rails quickly. I don't know where he was going with that #metoo-esque rant.
32:56, Argument for the against side falls apart when he again conflates safety and belonging as the same thing.
1:13:49
It appears that both sides are talking passed each other. Yes, you are both right. But, you are also talking about different stuffs!
A pointless debate indeed. If you don't go to University to learn how to adapt and have the intellectual mechanisms to deal with a world full of people who will disagree with you, offend you and outright annoy you then I don't know why you bother going. Sorry "snowflakes" but life is hard and full of people who will piss you off...you have to be learn and foster how to deal with that if you're going to survive never mind flourish.
This whole "debate" was the For side making valid points and then the Against side deflecting by saying "I don't think that's the issue"
I feel like the entirety of the debate missed the mark. Everything the "Against" team said was common-sensical, but was divorced from the reality of activism on college campuses. Professors and administration have been in a very real power struggle with their students, from Evergreen to the Ivy League. Somehow this didn't come up at all, which is a shame.
This was such a farce of a debate. If you do not agree on a term, discard the term and debate the idea that you hold that it represents. The side against is either insultingly ignorant or is blatantly trying to pull a bait and switch. I felt unsafe just listening to this!
Terrible concept.
Confusing "safe" with "non-threatening" is very dangerous is a market place if ideas. School and university has never been "non-threatening", it's terrifying. Campuses are pretty "safe" on the other hand, as assaults happen very rarely.