More people need to learn that if you leave your bubbles and talk to people, you'll find that they are actually indeed people too, and not caricatures you read about on outrage-bait new articles.
I’ve mentioned an idea to a friend of mine: a sort of welfare/basic income program where people are paid to talk to others. There is no restriction as to the topic as long as the other person consents to having the conversation: it can be as mundane talking about the weather. My reasoning behind it was just to get people who otherwise would not talk to each other to do so to actively reinforce my observation that everyone is the same in different ways and different in the all same ways.
Some of those things are more inclusive and diverse than the others. Fortunately there exists a modern equivalent that exposes people to a lot of different folks all at the same time: universities. For many rural teenagers, a university will be the first time they meet people from another country, who don't speak English as their first language, or a sizable number of people with a different skin color. Speaking from experience, growing up in Iowa.
Most university students are in their late teens and early 20's and once they graduate they never go back. Churches and other social institutions are more lifelong.
"What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. This works both ways."
Only do this if you're part of the in-group. If you're part of the out-group and reveal yourself, you could lose your job, friends, and more. If you were to reach out or fraternize with someone like James Damore, you will likely be cast out.
This is actually the impression I got from the medium post: he didn't reveal any viewpoints that would risk exposing him as not being part of the in-group, whether or not he actually held any.
> More people need to learn that if you leave your bubbles and talk to people, you'll find that they are actually indeed people too, and not caricatures you read about on outrage-bait new articles.
I often find the people that make this case are in their own bubbles, they aren't aware about. Like the notion LA and NYC are bubbles, and the midwest is "real America." Even though LA and NYC contain huge amounts of economic, racial, and LGTBQ+ diversity, and what many politicians consider "real America" to be a homogenous group.
From the author's photo his purple heart was not from a minor wound. He appears to be an amputee. I imagine that the dog in class was related to this. It is heartening that these students were able to respect this man for his service, or despite it. I would hope that the same would happen if his sacrifice was less evident. I'd think it well could have. People are so much better when they meet face to face without any built in confrontation.
The Yale Directed Studies program is no joke -- it tends to attract the most motivated humanities students and to have incredible amounts of work and reading.
Impressive that he's taking it, but he's also seeing a somewhat more serious class of students who, by extension, are less likely to be snowflakes.
I've talked to more ordinary college students and they're pretty reasonable, normal people too.
Perhaps what's more likely is a tiny fraction of toxic people who use the social justice toolbox illegitimately are amplified disproportionately.
The world has always had toxic annoying people. There's always been that lady at church that pretends to be into Jesus but secretly just likes to dominate and bully others. Most people you meet though are pretty reasonable and nice.
Try to see the humanity in people who aren't like you.
The point is that the tiny toxic fraction is unlikely to pursue a curriculum that starts with the assumption that the western canon is worth reading and understanding deeply.
You're missing the point. Try engaging with people -- and I mean engaging with them, not talking at them or even arguing with them -- and don't make so many assumptions.
I think we’re talking past each other? I’m not making a value judgment per se. It is simply a fact that many in the toxic social justice group you reference do not believe that the work of dead white males is particularly interesting or important. Thus, they tend to self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon. This isn’t an assumption — it’s an observation about many of my friends who took DS (I couldn’t hack it myself!)
What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice?
> do not believe that the work of dead white males
Does everyone in that group believe that specific thing as well?
> self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon
What percentage of those people outright reject the Western cannon as not worth learning? Do some of them think it's worthwhile to learn, but also want to get other perspectives as well so don't take quite so many of those classes?
I'm not trying to nitpick or go line-by-line, but just asking you to question your judgments about people. I find people are overwhelmingly more nuanced and reasonable than is often assumed.
It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs. I mean, even when you start generalizing about people, different neighborhoods in Houston contain very different people of different viewpoints and circumstances. And then there are rural areas, different socioeconomic spectrums, etc. etc. etc.
Don't lump people together. And I'm not trying to hand wave all analysis of people as "too complex to understand," but just to realize that people might be quite a bit different than you think if you give them the benefit of the doubt.
>It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs
It's about aggregate behavior and prevalent norms, not about any two random people being the same as each other.
If those people's ideas where vectors, they'd be closer together and pointing towards a more similar direction, than from another group (say, Californians).
That doesn't mean you wont find vectors of millions of individual persons in the South pointing even the total opposite way for this or that matter typically associated with the South.
Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent. That's why our country is so divided these days.
Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste?
Going back to the video, you might think all that focus on triggers and anxiety is indicative of a greater toxic culture (evidence of aggregate behavior as you say) -- but were you there for the whole thing? Did you try to understand what they were coming from, and why they take that approach? Did you try to first discover with an open mind what you have in common and what your values fundamentally disagree with?
I'm sure in a moment of carelessness or stress you've probably done something stupid in traffic, but it would be unfair for someone to categorize you as a negligent or inept person without talking to you first.
I am kind of harping on this because I used to be pretty judgmental, but since breaking out of that mindset I've become a kinder and frankly much smarter person.
It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
>Talk to people. Don't take a few seconds of something that they said and relentlessly mock them, like the guy is doing in that video you sent.
People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings.
>Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste?
Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex.
That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc.
MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did.
One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people.
>It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.
I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. Because otherwise you're just going on your own biases and what other people have told you.
It's like I didn't understand blues music very well until I realized that they put a lot of feeling into how they placed each specific note, more so than other genres I've heard. But if you don't know to listen to that, you don't understand what they're trying to say.
Groups of people talk in different ways like that, too. It's easy to listen to them and assume they're saying nothing of value, but perhaps they're communicating something you haven't learned to listen to yet.
>I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step.
You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually.
For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels.
Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).
You can look at hard data and form models about groups (e.g. perhaps to best market to them), but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that.
Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me.
of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis.
That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways?
To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith.
But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!
Fellow DS alum? I still rate DS as among the hardest things I've done (although partly because I was too inexperienced to know how to pace/schedule my work correctly). Everything that followed felt so easy afterwards. Sophomore to senior years all felt like a breeze compared to DS. It also had a fairly profound effect on my intellectual development. Even though I graduated with a degree in CS, most of my non-work reading is still in the humanities -- mostly history and political science.
I did the Princeton version, and studied math before CS, but same idea. I spent the two years after graduation filling in gaps in my philosophy and history background. It provides a very useful intellectual framework insofar as it shows the history and interconnectedness of ideas from disparate cultures and time periods.
This very humble author possibly impressed and changed his fellow students more than he would admit. Many modern narratives and trends simply fall apart when confronted with reality.
Thank you very much for the wonderful and very insightful article.
Developing the humility and truly believing that we are all snowflakes and willingness to learn from the diversity around us is a big step forward.
I loved the analogy between leaders and bridge builders. I always considered leaders as those who build a pedestal or platform or ladder for the rest to use and grow. Very similar.
It gives me confidence and courage to take up a few courses myself and enjoy learning and not just go after grades.
Studying with veterans is an incredible experience. I'm lucky that my school (Columbia) has a very large undergraduate vet population. It adds a dimension of experiential diversity that many colleges fail to capture, and makes real what are normally distant and easy to abstract away geopolitical decisions, like deploying troops in Afghanistan. I hope more universities follow Yale and Columbia in creating spaces for returning serviceman to integrate into collegiate life - it's good for all of us.
I have an ex ranger on my team who is the most sexist, pompous, self important asshole I’ve ever met. By far the best bloviator and derailer of projects I’ve seen.
I'm a graduate of Columbia's School of General Studies, alongside many veterans and other non-traditional students. I'm not a veteran, but I had many friends that had served. We had classes with younger students from Columbia College and Barnard and I felt like we brought a different perspective to the classes. I learned a lot from my fellow classmates and I feel so fortunate that I had the opportunity.
Going into the military before you go to college seems to be a very common thing in the US.
In the UK you'd either do college (university) first, or you wouldn't be planning on doing it at all. Some people do in-service degrees but I don't think it's common for large number of people to do a normal undergraduate degree after a military career.
This is because of the G.I. Bill, wherein the government will pay for your education if you serve in the military. This makes service a viable alternative for paying to college, as opposed to loans or coming from a rich family.
As a result many Americans join the military with their primary intention being to go to school after they complete their service. I believe 4 years is required for the G.I. Bill, but I could be incorrect.
His book 'Touching the Dragon' [1] was an interesting read. I recommend it if you liked this article, gives you a perspective of where he is coming from now.
The author either has a fundamental misunderstanding of the criticisms against "safe spaces" or he's deliberately mischaracterizing them to earn the favor of his classmates.
> What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement.
If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them. The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.
If you every get to know someone who is, you'll find trans people actually do suffer significant violence and disrespect. I know you put those in scare quotes to imply it's not real and I think that's really dishonest.
I am sure safe spaces are implemented in a variety of ways and with varying levels of competence.
I would point out that "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" is not so much an opinion as it is an ideology. I suspect many safe spaces would be far more open to including people who subscribe to that ideology if those people entered those discussions with a willingness to learn, a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery, and a desire to share their own experiences of gender while also learning about other experiences of gender.
That is not any easy thing to do and it is especially difficult to do for cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. If there is an honest desire to be included in these discussions, I would highly recommend taking the time to listen and learn before you start sharing your viewpoint so you can understand the effects that your words will have.
On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic inclusivity side. It may be confirmation bias, but the kind of shit I've become aware of is ridiculous. Some examples are the backlash that Bret Weinstein got a few years ago at Evergren, the amount of "Fuck Terfs" that's spraypainted all over my neighborhood because women's shelters don't allow people who only identify as women to be the same as bio-sex females, and the banning of public libraries from inclusion of events like pride on the basis that they allow critics a space to speak. If the genuine desire to have a dialogue was there, it would be more obvious. Even some of my friends who live the social justice life seem to shut down when they don't have script readily indexed to respond to what they deem a threat in regular conversation. I wish this wasn't the case, because I am a liberal person, but believe these things need scrutiny as much as anything else. That's the only way people who are currently suppressed can then be elevated in a sustainable way.
Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.
> a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery
What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros? Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?
It seems that you must either abide by the ideology, censor yourself, or be exiled and called a nazi. This goes against everything that a university is about: free speech and open discussion.
> cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime.
Correct. Cisgendered people represent the majority of the population. Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population. That is not to say that I refuse to be respectful towards them, it shows that the majority of people don't get the chance to interact and learn what to avoid saying. Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
> Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population?
Every person you meet is a minority of 1 in 7 billion. Is it so hard for you to learn how to understand people? Do you have trouble with new words and concepts?
> Do you have trouble with new words and concepts?
The trouble comes when a tiny minority (i) decides that the accepted meaning of common terms no longer suits their personal preference — I refer here to the use of they as a generic singular pronoun in formal language — and (ii) insists loudly that anyone who fails to conform to their new preference is being hurtful and disrespectful instead of merely precise.
It never ceases to astonish me how ready some people are to feel hurt and disrespected — and to brand anyone who disagrees with them as "shallow and pedantic." I have no desire to expend scarce brain cycles trying to keep up with who wants to be addressed in what manner.
> I have no desire to expend scarce brain cycles trying to keep up with who wants to be addressed in what manner.
This is disrespectful. You might think that this disrespect is warranted- that's fine; one must make judgment calls about what to respect and what not to respect. It's still disrespect. Be yourself: own it :)
Many people of different types have preferences about what they consider respectful forms of address and communication. I don't expect people to always get it right (I certainly don't), but it is entirely reasonable to see am unwillingness to even try to be polite as disrespectful.
It's not impolite to use standard terms of address, and it's disrespectful to expect others to learn and remember your personal, nonstandard preference for how you want to be addressed.
They is the only available standard gender neutral term. The only alternative is "it" which is generally considered offensive when applied to people (try calling a new baby whose gender you don't know "it" and see what kind of look you get).
It's not up you how somebody wants to be addressed after requesting it. You don't have to harbor cruel feelings about it. Singular they has been used in English for a long time historically.
"Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population."
That's super interesting to me, because in my experience in any social group I participate in greater than, say, 50 or 100(anything from gamer rooms to code-a-thons), chances are good that at least one person will not be cis. I may not know they aren't cis, but in spaces that ask for preferred pronouns, it's quite common for they/them to be taken up as an accepted pronoun.
> What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros?
Of course the pros and cons can be subjective, relative and individual. Among the trans and non-binary community, sexual reassignment surgery is not ubiquitous.
> Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?
You seem to be missing the distinction between sharing your opinions kindly and respectfully and self-censoring. My point is that people without much experience on this topic will likely have no clue about they ways they are being cruel, disrespectful or ignorant.
> Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
If you would like to act respectful towards (and be taken seriously by) any population, you must make an effort to learn their volcabulary and desired forms of respectful communication. This applies to any cultural group and isn't anything new or an audacious request.
> * The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about transgenderism*
What a strange example! What is the "dissenting opinion" about sex-reassignment surgery and transgenderism? Is it not for individuals to decided? Why would this even be an issue in the public space. If you're not transgender, does it impact you in any way?
For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages.
"For myself I am not against the procedure. I am against allowing children to do so without the consent of their parent. We don't let children drink, drive, or hold employment until certain ages. Yet is is completely fine for them to have life altering changes done to their bodies at very young ages."
Can you cite numbers on where and how often this is occurring?
Can you cite examples of this occurring with any sort of regularity in America? The most I've ever heard of are doctors prescribing puberty blockers - which actually preserves their ability to choose later.
Even this is seen as an extreme step and typically only done with multiple doctors signing off.
There are appear to be rare outliers and technicalities, but these are single digit exceptions rather than representative of some new norm.
We are off topic but I'd like to answer your question.
It's increasingly become an issue in the public space because local governments are increasingly getting involved with this issue. Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children.
This is about as charitable an interpretation as the one suggesting marriage equality would be a harbinger of bestiality. You can always connect some set of dots from a policy you don't like to some lurid, horrible outcome; there's a well-known rhetorical fallacy that captures this directly.
Your comment is a good example of the critique at the top of this thread. You start with the worst possible interpretation of my comment, use a metaphor about bestiality and immediately dismiss my comment as a fallacy.
I understand why you'd read it that way and I'm sorry if I worded it carelessly, but I didn't make the "bestiality" thing up and wasn't implying that you were making that comparison. Those really were dots that people, including senior policymakers, connected. Something you might want to read up on is "the parade of horribles", which is what you're essentially invoking when you suggest that any government protection for trans people is a slippery slope to "unproven and ill-advised treatment for children".
I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs.
You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.
Except that the horrible in question - giving puberty blockers and other transgender treatments to children - is already happening, and I think I remember a case in Canada where that was done despite the wishes of the parents.
All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. The whole point of them is to buy time for patients to more carefully consider their path going forward. They're practically the opposite of "unproven and ill-advised". I'm not seeing the "horrible" here.
But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
> All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken.
If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there)
And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
So, let's acknowledge that we're just random people on a message board discussing a complicated topic neither of us are authoritative about, and that we're both going to do the standard message board thing of quickly Googling for resources that connect to our arguments.
With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences.
The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors.
Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
No permanent side effects? Risks of puberty blockers include compromise bone development, underdeveloped genitals, and infertility. I don't know where you're claiming that they're the "opposite of unproved and ill-advised". Using synthetic hormones to block puberty in adolescents and pre-teens is something that's only been done in the last decade or so. Most publications indicate that the safety is far from certain, due to the limited amount of time that these drugs have been used [1].
The potential benefit of puberty blockers is that it potentially makes children who transition to the opposite sex more aesthetically similar to that sex. But since the majority of people who identify as transgender as children desist [2] (they eventually identify as their sex at birth) many are going to endure the risks of puberty blockers for no benefit.
Your comment makes a bunch of strong claims and backs them up with research results that appear to say the opposite thing. For instance: the American Academy of Pediatrics report you've cited is supportive of puberty blockers, and cites as sources other reports noting that they've been used safely for decades. If these are your best sources, the conclusion I draw is that your argument is weak.
You originally claimed that "All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty" and that they "have no permanent effects that require reversal". From the pediatrics journal I cited:
> Pubertal suppression is not without risks. Delaying puberty beyond one’s peers can also be stressful and can lead to lower self-esteem and increased risk taking. Some experts believe that genital underdevelopment may limit some potential reconstructive options. Research on long-term risks, particularly in terms of bone metabolism and fertility, is currently limited and provides varied results.
Not only are there health risks, some of the potential damage is irreversible. Your above comment is completely dismissive of the health risks of puberty blockers.
Whether or not the user puberty blockers is ethical is a question of whether compromising the health of the majority of children that display gender dysphoria but eventually identify with their birth sex versus blocking secondary sex characteristics to provide a more aesthetically pleasing body for the minority that do follow through with gender reassignment. While the study does ultimately support the use of puberty blockers it does so in an environment where highlighting that the majority of transgender children desist is socially unacceptable - to the point where many categorically deny that any transgender youth desist.
Did you take the time to read any of the citations for this report, which, again, is supportive of puberty blockers and (strongly) supportive of early medical intervention for TGD patients? Or are you hanging your entire argument on "research on long-term risks is currently limited"? The report's citations are clearer, as are the other resources you'll find on puberty-blocking drugs. The medical research consensus appears to overwhelmingly support delayed puberty as a treatment strategy for TGD patients.
(The "irreversability" of effects from puberty blockers is itself contentious; TGD patients given puberty blockers apparently tend not to desist, and puberty delay is followed up with cross-sex hormone treatment that can theoretically reverse bone mineralization issues; the age at which the drugs are administered is also a major variable in these studies).
I've read something like 9-10 studies on this issue this afternoon and haven't found one that couldn't reasonably be described as "strong support" for GnRHa-type treatment. Can you find a credible study that isn't? All I found were things by people like Michael Laidlaw, a private practice doctor and tort expert witness who is cited more frequently in places like The Daily Wire and The Federalist than in medical journals. You can probably do better! And you need to do better than a single sentence from a long report that appears to straightforwardly and directly disagree with the thrust of your argument.
You initially claimed that there are no effects of puberty blockers besides delaying puberty. This is not the case. You seem to be conflating support for the usage of puberty blockers with the idea that puberty blockers are safe and free of adverse side effects. These are two very different things. Those studies that endorse puberty blockers do so despite the health risks - they do not deny the existence of health risks.
And lastly, while you purport to have read many studies and have asked that I provide references you have not provided a single source to support the claims you're making. Link me to a study that categorically denies the existence of adverse consequences of puberty blockers. This is what you claimed above. Finding studies that support the use of puberty blockers is not support for your claim that "All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty" and that they "have no permanent effects".
This is a complex subject and you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't misrepresent facts. The kid and the mother want the treatment, but the father is trying to block it.
Your argument begins with the least charitable interpretation of people who support said surgery so I'm not sure how you can claim the high ground here.
> Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children.
This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.
Right, but the flipside of that is people are using similar arguments they used against black civil rights like the horrors of integration and the dangers of mixed race marriages against LGBTQ+ community. At one point a majority of the country agreed with those opinions and that the government was overstepping its boundaries to further a harmful ideology.
I think some people have some kind of misfunctional sympathetic link with what they see, so that they feel about other people's bodies like they do about their own. Others seem to rely so heavily on heuristics in their interactions with other people that they are not able to deal with outliers from their perceived norm. Others yet have not realized their mental image of another person is not an actual being, but a reflection of themselves created by their mirror neurons where the blanks are filled in based on past experience.
I suppose the study of the humanities is supposed to lead us out of this dark and terrifying labyrinth of misconceptions.
> If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them.
That's the public perception based on news media. Sure, there may be a minority of "safe spaces" that are how you depicted, but if you include AA, group therapy, and other things of that nature, I think your perception is wrong.
>A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.
When almost 50% of trans male teens have attempted suicide [1], almost half of all trans people report being verbally or physically harassed [2], and the American Medical Association calling violence against trans people an "epidemic" [3], then yes, I think there is a fair case to be made anti-trans sentiment contributes to violence towards the trans community, just like how anti-black sentiment in the US contributed to violence against black people.
Is going into spaces where trans people feel comfortable, to make your case against sex-reassignment surgery something you feel that needs to happen?
> A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism [sic!] because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.
What does "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" even mean? I see two options:
1. Being opposed to others having the possibility of undergoing such a surgery.
2. Being opposed to undergoing such a surgery.
In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases. In the second case, AFAIK nobody forces anybody to undergo such a surgery, so I doubt that anybody understands this position this way.
Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces", however this particular criticism seems ill-founded.
> You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly.
There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself.
> their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm
That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.
The vast majority of Western countries (at least) no longer have laws against committing suicide.
What they do have is laws that allow the basic rights of people who are considered "a danger to themselves", such as the right to refuse treatment, to be set aside. In my view such laws, unless limited to people with specifically diagnosable and treatable conditions, are an unwarranted invasion of government into an individual's private affairs.
I think that I should be the judge of what is harmful to me. So you could say that I disagree with you, but FWIW I don't agree with the downvotes you received. Your points are valid, it seems that a lot of people use the downvote button as a sign of disagreement.
> 'Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces"...'
The article defines a safe space as "...an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement."
I read it. And I think that people shouldn't be shielded from harsh judgement or things that they may find offensive. Mutual respect is desired, but it isn't something that can be achieved by regulation --- unless you aim merely for a false sense of respect.
Or... this could be an honest example and you don't have a full understanding of how "safe space" is used. You apply skepticism about a charged thing to a man you don't know who seems to be writing honestly about people he wouldn't normally fit in with and how other people have misunderstood them. Do you have space for self reflection on this? Twitter and MSM run on outrage. Would it be completely shocking to you to learn that you don't know the whole story?
The content and tone of the comments replying to you are making your point so hard right now. To me it really demonstrates how trigger-happy people are with certain concepts. If any opportunity presents itself, however tenuous it may be, to "own" someone on the other side, it MUST be taken! The gods of cortisol must be satisfied at all times.
Put this way, it really makes me think you don't like safe spaces because they hinder your ability to hurt transgender people.
It always seem that the only people complaining about systems designed to respect others is the people that are doing the dis-respecting, haven't seen much proof of the contrary so far.
Safe spaces is a phrase people use when they don't want to call it these environments for what they actually are, which are spaces for vulnerable members of society to have a place to discuss issues that are relevant to them, without having the already dominant voices in society interjecting, usually in a disrespectful manner.
That is not at all the definition used in the article which is the point of the OP's comment.
If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
We're talking about the literal definition used in the article, and that does not match up with what you're claiming. There is no limitation on membership to "vulnerable" people, whatever that means, nor is any voice "dominant" by default.
> "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?"
No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all.
> "And since when are all private clubs bad?"
Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.
> > What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement.
The quote literally says difficult subjects (read conversations) can be had within this space. Obviously we have different interpretations and my comment is adding my own perspective to it.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition of space space in the article is only limited to discussion, not identity or comfort. You claim that's not what they actually are, so you are agreeing with the OP then in pointing out how the article uses a different definition than the common usage in reality.
You’re conflating several distinct points into one. By expanding on how I see the term safe space being used doesn’t mean I disagree with the article and therefore agree with the OP. I don’t think that’s that hard to understand. I don’t really find it productive to continue this discussion.
The problem is of course when legitimate facts or opinions hurt others, it has the side effect of silencing others and creating a false sense of consensus (sometimes, literally, a false sense of scientific consensus) and debating the actual merit of different policies.
The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"
The reason this isn't a devastating rhetorical blow is that everyone from scientists to basement-dwelling bigots believes they have "legitimate facts" on their side. People believe all sorts of random things, and some of those things are genuinely harmful. I'm not saying I know where the line needs to be drawn, but there clearly is a line somewhere; "drink bleach to cure diseases" seems like a solid (and real!) example.
I mean, are you advocating for the policy that people shouldn't be allowed to say this?
Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question.
Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing.
For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me.
All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
Facts are objective truths. I don't see how discussing them could ever be a problem, regardless of how you consider the person quoting them.
"Drink bleach to cure diseases" is not a fact. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to mean. Obviously people making stuff up is a problem but isn't that the complete opposite of facts?
How do you know what is an isn't an objective truth? People disagree about things. You've just shut down a real (and inexplicably popular) opposing view, that vaccines are poison and bleach is medicine. What gave you the right to do this?
The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to a complete consensus on their acceptance as truth.
Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.
How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified.
The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.
Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs.
Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead.
Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.
What's "science"? Scientists disagree with each other all the time. Pick a controversial scientific issue; anthropogenic global climate change is a good example. Climate skeptics have no trouble coming up with scientific authorities to back their claims. Do we just take a poll and accept the results? That's probably what I'd do, but it's hardly satisfying as a way of determining what "objective truth" is.
The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments.
The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.
There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The change is real and happening, with the questions being: are humans having an effect and how much of an effect, with a follow up of *if we're having an effect then can we change it/reverse it".
Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made.
As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that science is evolving and contentious and that as convenient as it is for people to declare victory and claim that science has settled and, in turn, settled the arguments they've found themselves in, science tends not to make any such claims. If you think that's not the case, and that, for instance, science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear, I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me.
I've explained this several times that facts and the narrative based on them are entirely different. The former is settled, otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. The latter is not, and is what the discussion is for.
> "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear"
This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains.
> "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me."
That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly.
So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument.
Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.
If hearing the opinion of someone you vehemently disagree with, in this case the appropriateness of sexual affirmation surgery (or whatever its called these days), hurts you are not mature enough for institutions of higher learning, or quite frankly, to constructively participate in democratic society.
As a Jew, hearing the words of neo-nazis absolutely disgusts me to my core but it does not "hurt" me. If words hurt you, that is your fault, not the words' fault.
As a fellow Jew, I hope you'd be just as tolerant of these neo nazis coming to your schul and calling the Holocaust a hoax. If not, it seems like you need a safe space as much as the more disenfranchised minority groups.
You seem to be taking an example and making it personal. Let's avoid that.
The OP is merely pointing out how so-called "safe spaces" today are just echo chambers. If you consider topics that you disagree with as uncomfortable, or even harmful, and exclude them from discussion, then what exactly is the difficult non-judgemental conversation to be had in that space?
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
"Documentary" makes it sound sterile or clinical, but in fact it's pretty badass.
Kind of dispels the illusion that we're not pampered.
It's so good I'll probably watch it again today. The diving section is the best, IMO. Imagine someone spinning you around underwater and ripping off parts of your dive gear then having to reassemble it basically blind.
Imagine a junior code review that starts like this (https://youtu.be/AGvvNKBGgUw?t=230): "This entire codebase has been a joke. There hasn't been a single module that you've written during the course of this project that has even remotely resembled perfection. Everything has been sad, weak, and unreadable. And it's all because you're inside your tiny little brain, self-defeating yourself."
Admittedly that only happens during the training phase, though.
Yes and no. It’s not acceptable to overlook safety. During the documentary, there are situations where you can see the instructors prioritize the well-being of the candidates (as opposed to saying “no, keep going”). One candidate complained he was feeling dizzy, and the instructor sent the candidate to get checked even though he personally felt there was nothing wrong with him. Wish I could remember the timestamp.
There is also the concept of being rolled back due to injury. If you sprain your ankle, for example, you can’t keep going. It’s a persistent fear of all candidates, since it’s a big setback. But the flipside is that apparently you only get rolled back to when the next class catches up to where you’re at right now in training. It’s one of the cooler parts in my opinion, since you can see they truly value the candidates rather than thinking of them as disposable tools (which you occasionally feel like as a programmer...)
But, ultimately, you’re correct: it’s inherently dangerous. Everyone signs up knowing the risks.
In Australia at least, the special forces training (so I've been told by those who know some who went through it) can definitely cause injury and you are free to leave at any time due to it. But you can never return.
The emotional impact of going through the training will not be the same the second time around, so they won't take you back for another try.
A story I heard was that the trainers were total arseholes saying he was weak, saying he couldn't finish, and so on - then as soon as he realised he had to stop (broken leg or something) their attitudes completely changed to supportive and caring. Going through that and seeing the other side would definitely ruin the experience if they let you back in.
A good friend of mine from high school is a Navy SEAL. He was shot in the leg in combat (similar to the guy from this story, though not quite as bad; but still multiple surgeries and over a year of recovery). He said he'd rather get shot again than go through BUD/S again.
A graduate of my high school (from a couple classes above mine) served as a member of Marine Force Recon. The opportunity to go through their training opened up after basic, but he sprained his ankle a couple days beforehand. They told him that was unfortunate, but that maybe he could try out in a year or so. Instead, he started training with a sprain.
The thing that hit me after coming back from the war, was how absolutely meaningless the vast majority of life’s required set of petty exercises are. I understand the elitism and the challenge of conquering Yale. There seems, however, to be a monumental difference between him and the rest; that is, 26 years of hardship, quiet observation, and directed action in shaping the world before reaching toward a philosophical understanding of it, versus young people desperately seeking that relevance for themselves, but only within the bounds of perfect physical and emotional comfort, perhaps not realizing that their pontifications are more limbic than neocortical. Downrange was my “safe space”; it gives a name to that limbic fear and drops a lot of emotional pretense otherwise. Stanford, not so much. What I found impressive there was the Sisyphean devotion to transforming ones mind into a perfect vessel of discovery, creation, and healing. I didn’t really respect it until I started to see that path as a superior way of being to my own, and made my best effort to commit to it despite the overwhelming disadvantage of time. Perhaps someday I too will see the same moral superiority in the screeds of elite youth in the humanities and social sciences. He was, after all, a far greater man in his first career than I ever will be.
The trouble with the term 'elitism' is that sometimes the best is only adequate, and for many people the best that society has to give is legitimately not enough. One lifetime of learning is not enough. Another one is in order.
"We work in the dark - we do what we can - we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art."
It sounds like you have a similar story—if I understand correctly, you went to Stanford as a veteran? If you'd be willing to share more, I think readers here would be interested.
This man's experience & his positive report of campus culture at an Ivy League school are heartening among all the distressing stories of ideological conformity on elite college campuses. It certainly is not all students at elite schools who are trying to shut down discussion, and claims that all students are doing that are surely exaggerated.
Two things should be noted, however. First, that this is one person's account, not an examination of broader trends. For a broader, data-supported survey of anti-free-speech trends on campus and why it harms students, "The Coddling of the American Mind" is a fantastic and enlightening book. (Incidentally it cites causes from right & left wing extremists, on and off campus, it's not a story of "snowflakes bad".)
Second, it's not necessary for authoritarian/illiberal activists to be in the majority in order to have a profound impact on the culture. "A small group of dedicated individuals" can affect great change even if they're in the extreme minority. If 1% of people on campus are willing to publicly condemn you and do everything they can to destroy your reputation or get you fired, and 4% are willing to go along with it, that can be enough to convince the the other 95% to keep their mouths shut.
None of this is to take away from the fact that this is a refreshing narrative of unity, openness & cultural exchange in the Ivies.
It annoys me. Smart people should be able to deal with subjects outside their comfort zone but what I see here is the intellectual version of footguns employed more as a rule than an exception. - People downvote things they don't understand. - It's crazy. They can't even stand up for their opinions but do it anonymously, like cowards.
Smart people should be able to deal with subjects outside their comfort zone
"Smart" is a cognitive trait; dealing with what is outside one's comfort zone is a different developmental axis altogether. Smart people are no better able to do this than anyone else, and may even have a harder time.
I see. I mean a different smart. General intelligence. It implies you learn the traits required to solve a hard problem. It's a habit of self-optimization.
I don't actually know if general intelligence is a thing the way you're describing it. There's no reason why an insanely smart algo PhD-from-MIT person could take their algo smarts and intuitively apply it to being a compassionate human being dealing with others whose existence and experiences may be drastically different from themselves for practically no feasible reason (fate/gods/random chance).
A lot of traits commonly seen as benevolent can be attributed to evolutionary pressure. Healthy human emotions associated with these are not necessary for them to work, although they are important for living a fulfilling life.
Cooperation and diversity are both optimal so being complex social creatures we go to lenghts to communicate as widely as we may. I think it all works out quite nicely, thankfully.
Prediction: out within a year, after saying something not 150% politically correct to those "open minded" students in their "safe space". Nowadays you can get fired for insisting that biological differences exist between men and women or suggesting that, perhaps, uncontrolled, illegal immigration is an undesirable phenomenon. A 52 year old veteran is not going to survive walking over that minefield for very long.
You might be surprised how "civilized" military members can be. Among their own and blowing off steam they will say things that will make the hair curl on most people... and then if you look around at the others it's obvious it's not said out of malice but is a mark of The Brotherhood. They have not only pledged their lives to serve and protect their bothers in arms, they have, in many cases, made good on that promise. Saying massively politically incorrect things -- even things that would sound hateful to an outsider -- is a strange way of showing affection. "I might think you're a blankety-blank blah-blah politically incorrect and mentally inferior example of humanity but I will give my life on the battlefield so that you can make it home, even if I don't make it back myself." For those who have not gone through such an experience, no amount of explanation is possible; for those who have, no explanation is necessary.
But around "normal people" you would never suspect what they've been through (with the exception of PTSD and obvious injuries).
As an undergrad, I got to spend a semester in the ROTC capstone for second semester seniors called “Leadership and Ethics.” I remember walking in on my first day in cargo shorts and flip flops as the only civilian and non-senior student. Everyone else was in full uniform. The class was taught by a Marine Officer.
As a business student, I realized how similar the military and business can be. Most of the theory of leadership and management aims to address a fundamental goal: how do you get people to do something they may not necessarily want to do. Whether that’s making widgets or killing someone, the underlying theories are quite similar.
The main difference I noticed between the two fields was the military’s emphasis on trust. You were to respect a chain of command because you could trust your commanding officer. You were expected to perform your best because you could trust your teammates to do the same. The reason soldiers could rely on this trust was because their superiors had gone through the bullshit and could manage from a seat of positional and experiential authority.
In the business world, they taught management as if having positional authority would automatically create trust and inspire subordinates. MBA students graduate and come into supervisory roles without any prior experience in the underlying work and get mixed results. Part of me wonders whether this is due to ineptitude or simply inexperience.
I remember finishing that course and thinking I really should study engineering because I knew that wanted to play a role in managing and leading technical teams working on innovative problems.
Fast forward a few years and I left my role in public accounting to go into industry, but instead of going into finance or internal accounting I chose to learn development and spend a few years experiencing what it’s like to be a developer, so that one day when I’m managing a technical team I can actually know when they’re giving me a legitimate justification for something, and when they’re just bullshitting me.
Having been a developer for a couple years now, I don’t know how I could have managed a technical team without this experience. I think back to my “career plan” before I took that class and remember thinking that I’d not only be able to find a managerial position upon graduation, but that I’d be able to lead effectively as a 22 year old. What a foolish 20 year old I was!
Anyway, this is really just a roundabout way of saying I loved my class and have tremendous respect for military leadership. I would have loved to have more classes with officers and veterans, and hope my kids get that opportunity someday.
If you have kids that want to do things in a pretty non-conformant way (with beautiful irony) I'd recommend taking a look at VMI and The Citadel, neither requires military service afterward (although it is an option and a good one to pay for the experience) yet you will be along side some of the best current and future military leaders as teachers, classmates, and friends for life. The Federal service academies are also well regarded but there's something a little bit more rough and tumble at these two that is precious and I say that with respect even as they two are rivals.
To have you ass kicked every day, in every way imaginable (mentally, physically, athletically, motivational, trivially, lack of sleep and food, academically) while still doing a full course load is really a great start on adult life which can be just as hard and you are always prepared. I doubt the academics are anything like an ivy, just sharing another option that reminded me of the bridging of two worlds of physicality and academic pursuit.
187 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 227 ms ] threadI would like to see just less dependence on cars, but I have no way of foisting that on people either.
You could be like me and grow up a weird liberal in a red state, but that will give you a complex and I don't recommend it.
Most university students are in their late teens and early 20's and once they graduate they never go back. Churches and other social institutions are more lifelong.
"What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement. This works both ways."
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/24/651052970/how-a-rising-star-o...
I often find the people that make this case are in their own bubbles, they aren't aware about. Like the notion LA and NYC are bubbles, and the midwest is "real America." Even though LA and NYC contain huge amounts of economic, racial, and LGTBQ+ diversity, and what many politicians consider "real America" to be a homogenous group.
Impressive that he's taking it, but he's also seeing a somewhat more serious class of students who, by extension, are less likely to be snowflakes.
what does that mean ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)#Unique_or_sp...
The "Other Uses" section is interesting; I didn't know about its (now historical) use by abolitionists in a different meaning.
I've talked to more ordinary college students and they're pretty reasonable, normal people too.
Perhaps what's more likely is a tiny fraction of toxic people who use the social justice toolbox illegitimately are amplified disproportionately.
The world has always had toxic annoying people. There's always been that lady at church that pretends to be into Jesus but secretly just likes to dominate and bully others. Most people you meet though are pretty reasonable and nice.
Try to see the humanity in people who aren't like you.
What group is that? Where can I find such a group that only has toxic members interested in social justice?
> do not believe that the work of dead white males
Does everyone in that group believe that specific thing as well?
> self-select out of classes with an emphasis on the western canon
What percentage of those people outright reject the Western cannon as not worth learning? Do some of them think it's worthwhile to learn, but also want to get other perspectives as well so don't take quite so many of those classes?
I'm not trying to nitpick or go line-by-line, but just asking you to question your judgments about people. I find people are overwhelmingly more nuanced and reasonable than is often assumed.
It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs. I mean, even when you start generalizing about people, different neighborhoods in Houston contain very different people of different viewpoints and circumstances. And then there are rural areas, different socioeconomic spectrums, etc. etc. etc.
Don't lump people together. And I'm not trying to hand wave all analysis of people as "too complex to understand," but just to realize that people might be quite a bit different than you think if you give them the benefit of the doubt.
Well, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yvzBFESqZs
>It's like when people talk about "the south" as if it were one thing. I'm from the south, and if you get two random people who live in the southern US (or any part of the world) they will both be individuals with a complex system of beliefs
It's about aggregate behavior and prevalent norms, not about any two random people being the same as each other.
If those people's ideas where vectors, they'd be closer together and pointing towards a more similar direction, than from another group (say, Californians).
That doesn't mean you wont find vectors of millions of individual persons in the South pointing even the total opposite way for this or that matter typically associated with the South.
Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste?
Going back to the video, you might think all that focus on triggers and anxiety is indicative of a greater toxic culture (evidence of aggregate behavior as you say) -- but were you there for the whole thing? Did you try to understand what they were coming from, and why they take that approach? Did you try to first discover with an open mind what you have in common and what your values fundamentally disagree with?
I'm sure in a moment of carelessness or stress you've probably done something stupid in traffic, but it would be unfair for someone to categorize you as a negligent or inept person without talking to you first.
I am kind of harping on this because I used to be pretty judgmental, but since breaking out of that mindset I've become a kinder and frankly much smarter person.
It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
People as individuals of course deserve for us to listen to them. Anybody. But it's OK to mock groups that go into aggregate stupid behavior - which also means mocking their members, but as members, not necessarily as whole human beings.
>Again, there is such thing as aggregate behavior, but break it apart. How much of it is toxic, and how much of it do you just find weird/not quite your taste?
Depends. If you're trying to judge an individual judge them on a case by case basis, despite whatever group(s) they might belong to. After all, their group affiliation doesn't define somebody totally. There can be jerk Democrats and wonderful Republicans for example, and vice versa. In fact, there can be great people that are otherwise (and for their own life-history reasons) bigots, and hideous hypocritical people who are otherwise humanitarians. People are complex.
That said, it's also helpful to judge movements in aggregate, when trying to trace historical contours, affect change, etc.
MLK could simply throw his hands up and say "everybody is different, I can't assume there is racism in the country" and try to access everybody individually -- and that would have gotten nowhere. Or, as he did, he could say there are very strong racist currents in the country, especially in the South, and I need to march there, and do so and so to change those people, as he did.
One has to think at several levels of abstraction, not just individual people.
>It's easy to treat someone like the "other" and project a lot of unfavorable traits onto them, because it's human nature. But it's important to try not to other-ize people.
If anything, I have another problem, I'm heavily contrarian. I see some things as basically correct, but if you push towards -X in a discussion (or if many people do) I will push towards X (even if in another disucssion I will push towards -X if somebody pushes to X) to restore balance. I also tend to pick things I agree with with both sides of a debate, even things they'll never themselves agree with ever. I basically hate group conformity. E.g. I can see the truth in some alt-right points, and I can see hardline leftist points. Not merely from a centrist way though (a compromise between them) but even hardcore tenets of one or the other side.
It's like I didn't understand blues music very well until I realized that they put a lot of feeling into how they placed each specific note, more so than other genres I've heard. But if you don't know to listen to that, you don't understand what they're trying to say.
Groups of people talk in different ways like that, too. It's easy to listen to them and assume they're saying nothing of value, but perhaps they're communicating something you haven't learned to listen to yet.
You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually.
For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels.
Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).
And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that.
Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me.
of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis.
That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways?
To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith.
But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!
The two fractions are almost indistinguishable from the outside.
Developing the humility and truly believing that we are all snowflakes and willingness to learn from the diversity around us is a big step forward.
I loved the analogy between leaders and bridge builders. I always considered leaders as those who build a pedestal or platform or ladder for the rest to use and grow. Very similar.
It gives me confidence and courage to take up a few courses myself and enjoy learning and not just go after grades.
No link.
While I didn't serve, I did grow up with and had close family and friends that were part of navy, army and air force special forces.
The clown you describe does not last long in special forces unless he's a modern day Audie Murphy, Roy Benavidez or Chesty Puller.
I'm a graduate of Columbia's School of General Studies, alongside many veterans and other non-traditional students. I'm not a veteran, but I had many friends that had served. We had classes with younger students from Columbia College and Barnard and I felt like we brought a different perspective to the classes. I learned a lot from my fellow classmates and I feel so fortunate that I had the opportunity.
In the UK you'd either do college (university) first, or you wouldn't be planning on doing it at all. Some people do in-service degrees but I don't think it's common for large number of people to do a normal undergraduate degree after a military career.
As a result many Americans join the military with their primary intention being to go to school after they complete their service. I believe 4 years is required for the G.I. Bill, but I could be incorrect.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill
Strongly.
[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/548196/touching-the...
> What she meant by “safe space” was that she was happy to be in an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement.
If that's actually how safe spaces were implemented in practice, there'd be little backlash against them. The primary criticism against safe spaces is that they are an excuse to censor dissenting opinions. A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.
I would point out that "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" is not so much an opinion as it is an ideology. I suspect many safe spaces would be far more open to including people who subscribe to that ideology if those people entered those discussions with a willingness to learn, a desire to honestly explore the pros and cons of that surgery, and a desire to share their own experiences of gender while also learning about other experiences of gender.
That is not any easy thing to do and it is especially difficult to do for cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime. If there is an honest desire to be included in these discussions, I would highly recommend taking the time to listen and learn before you start sharing your viewpoint so you can understand the effects that your words will have.
Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.
What if these pros and cons were subjective, and someone decided that in the end, the cons outweighed the pros? Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?
It seems that you must either abide by the ideology, censor yourself, or be exiled and called a nazi. This goes against everything that a university is about: free speech and open discussion.
> cisgender people who have little knowledge of the emotional land mines they can trigger by simply relying on the "common sense" they have learned over a lifetime.
Correct. Cisgendered people represent the majority of the population. Personally I have had maybe one or two opportunities to interact with a transgender person because they make up a tiny percentage of the population. That is not to say that I refuse to be respectful towards them, it shows that the majority of people don't get the chance to interact and learn what to avoid saying. Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
Every person you meet is a minority of 1 in 7 billion. Is it so hard for you to learn how to understand people? Do you have trouble with new words and concepts?
The trouble comes when a tiny minority (i) decides that the accepted meaning of common terms no longer suits their personal preference — I refer here to the use of they as a generic singular pronoun in formal language — and (ii) insists loudly that anyone who fails to conform to their new preference is being hurtful and disrespectful instead of merely precise.
I think it would be hurtful and disrespectful to die on such a mole hill instead of just accommodating people over something so simple.
This is disrespectful. You might think that this disrespect is warranted- that's fine; one must make judgment calls about what to respect and what not to respect. It's still disrespect. Be yourself: own it :)
You've calibrated your disrespect alarm to an awfully low setpoint.
Really? If you were to ask me to address you as Your Imperial Majesty, you should not hold your breath waiting for me to comply.
Language evolves; in formal English, singular they has long been unacceptable. (Informal English is another story.)
EDIT:
>You don't have to harbor cruel feelings about it.
You're proving my point in assuming I "harbor cruel feelings" about trans people.
That's super interesting to me, because in my experience in any social group I participate in greater than, say, 50 or 100(anything from gamer rooms to code-a-thons), chances are good that at least one person will not be cis. I may not know they aren't cis, but in spaces that ask for preferred pronouns, it's quite common for they/them to be taken up as an accepted pronoun.
Of course the pros and cons can be subjective, relative and individual. Among the trans and non-binary community, sexual reassignment surgery is not ubiquitous.
> Would you cast them as an evil person and exile them from your safe space? Would you accept their opinion, respectfully disagree, and move on?
You seem to be missing the distinction between sharing your opinions kindly and respectfully and self-censoring. My point is that people without much experience on this topic will likely have no clue about they ways they are being cruel, disrespectful or ignorant.
> Is everyone really required to learn all these new words / triggers / etc. in order to appease a tiny tiny fraction of the population? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
If you would like to act respectful towards (and be taken seriously by) any population, you must make an effort to learn their volcabulary and desired forms of respectful communication. This applies to any cultural group and isn't anything new or an audacious request.
What a strange example! What is the "dissenting opinion" about sex-reassignment surgery and transgenderism? Is it not for individuals to decided? Why would this even be an issue in the public space. If you're not transgender, does it impact you in any way?
Can you cite numbers on where and how often this is occurring?
Even this is seen as an extreme step and typically only done with multiple doctors signing off.
There are appear to be rare outliers and technicalities, but these are single digit exceptions rather than representative of some new norm.
https://www.quora.com/What-age-can-children-have-sexual-reas...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oregon-teen-sex-change-law...
It's increasingly become an issue in the public space because local governments are increasingly getting involved with this issue. Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children.
I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs.
You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.
But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there)
And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences.
The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors.
Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
The potential benefit of puberty blockers is that it potentially makes children who transition to the opposite sex more aesthetically similar to that sex. But since the majority of people who identify as transgender as children desist [2] (they eventually identify as their sex at birth) many are going to endure the risks of puberty blockers for no benefit.
1. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201821...
2. https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-re...
> Pubertal suppression is not without risks. Delaying puberty beyond one’s peers can also be stressful and can lead to lower self-esteem and increased risk taking. Some experts believe that genital underdevelopment may limit some potential reconstructive options. Research on long-term risks, particularly in terms of bone metabolism and fertility, is currently limited and provides varied results.
Not only are there health risks, some of the potential damage is irreversible. Your above comment is completely dismissive of the health risks of puberty blockers.
Whether or not the user puberty blockers is ethical is a question of whether compromising the health of the majority of children that display gender dysphoria but eventually identify with their birth sex versus blocking secondary sex characteristics to provide a more aesthetically pleasing body for the minority that do follow through with gender reassignment. While the study does ultimately support the use of puberty blockers it does so in an environment where highlighting that the majority of transgender children desist is socially unacceptable - to the point where many categorically deny that any transgender youth desist.
(The "irreversability" of effects from puberty blockers is itself contentious; TGD patients given puberty blockers apparently tend not to desist, and puberty delay is followed up with cross-sex hormone treatment that can theoretically reverse bone mineralization issues; the age at which the drugs are administered is also a major variable in these studies).
I've read something like 9-10 studies on this issue this afternoon and haven't found one that couldn't reasonably be described as "strong support" for GnRHa-type treatment. Can you find a credible study that isn't? All I found were things by people like Michael Laidlaw, a private practice doctor and tort expert witness who is cited more frequently in places like The Daily Wire and The Federalist than in medical journals. You can probably do better! And you need to do better than a single sentence from a long report that appears to straightforwardly and directly disagree with the thrust of your argument.
And lastly, while you purport to have read many studies and have asked that I provide references you have not provided a single source to support the claims you're making. Link me to a study that categorically denies the existence of adverse consequences of puberty blockers. This is what you claimed above. Finding studies that support the use of puberty blockers is not support for your claim that "All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty" and that they "have no permanent effects".
This is a complex subject and you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't misrepresent facts. The kid and the mother want the treatment, but the father is trying to block it.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/trans-teenager...
> Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children.
This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.
I suppose the study of the humanities is supposed to lead us out of this dark and terrifying labyrinth of misconceptions.
That's the public perception based on news media. Sure, there may be a minority of "safe spaces" that are how you depicted, but if you include AA, group therapy, and other things of that nature, I think your perception is wrong.
>A common example is that people opposed to sex-reassignment surgery are not allowed into discussions about trangenderism because their opinions are considered "disrespectful" or even "violent" to transgender people.
When almost 50% of trans male teens have attempted suicide [1], almost half of all trans people report being verbally or physically harassed [2], and the American Medical Association calling violence against trans people an "epidemic" [3], then yes, I think there is a fair case to be made anti-trans sentiment contributes to violence towards the trans community, just like how anti-black sentiment in the US contributed to violence against black people.
Is going into spaces where trans people feel comfortable, to make your case against sex-reassignment surgery something you feel that needs to happen?
[1]https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/4/e201742...
[2]https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/comedian-s-death-und...
[3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/15/amer...
What does "being opposed to sex-reassignment surgery" even mean? I see two options:
1. Being opposed to others having the possibility of undergoing such a surgery.
2. Being opposed to undergoing such a surgery.
In the first case, I do believe it's disrespectful of the freedom to do with one's body as one pleases. In the second case, AFAIK nobody forces anybody to undergo such a surgery, so I doubt that anybody understands this position this way.
Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces", however this particular criticism seems ill-founded.
You aren’t allowed to harm yourself. You could argue that you should but under current laws we protect people from that, mostly.
Also doctors have to perform these surgeries in which case their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm.
And finally and perhaps most importantly. These surgeries can be performed before the age of 18.
Can you cite numbers as to where, and how often, this is happening?
There is a law against committing suicide, but there aren't any laws about harming yourself. If there were, sugar intake would be regulated and alcohol would be banned. You also don't get arrested if you intentionally cut yourself.
> their oath would mandate we are certain this procedure isn’t causing harm
That's not what the oath means, and you can see plenty examples of this in practice. Many procedures cause harm and the question is whether or not the harm caused by the procedure outweighs the harm done by not doing the surgery.
The vast majority of Western countries (at least) no longer have laws against committing suicide.
What they do have is laws that allow the basic rights of people who are considered "a danger to themselves", such as the right to refuse treatment, to be set aside. In my view such laws, unless limited to people with specifically diagnosable and treatable conditions, are an unwarranted invasion of government into an individual's private affairs.
I don't understand your reply. Perhaps you meant to reply to a different comment?
> 'Disclaimer: I also don't like the idea of "safe spaces"...'
The article defines a safe space as "...an environment where difficult subjects can be discussed openly, without the risk of disrespect or harsh judgement."
I suppose I'm really asking you if you read TFA.
It always seem that the only people complaining about systems designed to respect others is the people that are doing the dis-respecting, haven't seen much proof of the contrary so far.
If the membership and topics are exclusive based on comfort then it is, by definition, not a safe space for any kind of difficult conversation. It's just a private club.
Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs? And since when are all private clubs bad?
> "Are also you saying difficult conversations cannot be had by people sharing similar interests or beliefs?"
No, but freedom for difficult conversations are the qualifier for a "safe space", not the identity of the individuals and their comfort which would be antithetical to free discussion by all.
> "And since when are all private clubs bad?"
Nobody said that. The point is that a safe-space as defined in the article is not the same as a private club with limited identities and discussions.
The quote literally says difficult subjects (read conversations) can be had within this space. Obviously we have different interpretations and my comment is adding my own perspective to it.
The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"
Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question.
Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing.
For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me.
All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
"Drink bleach to cure diseases" is not a fact. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to mean. Obviously people making stuff up is a problem but isn't that the complete opposite of facts?
Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.
The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.
Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead.
Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.
The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments.
The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.
Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made.
As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.
> "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear"
This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains.
> "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me."
That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly.
So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument.
Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.
As a Jew, hearing the words of neo-nazis absolutely disgusts me to my core but it does not "hurt" me. If words hurt you, that is your fault, not the words' fault.
The OP is merely pointing out how so-called "safe spaces" today are just echo chambers. If you consider topics that you disagree with as uncomfortable, or even harmful, and exclude them from discussion, then what exactly is the difficult non-judgemental conversation to be had in that space?
Do you have a source for why this specific example is common?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Documentary" makes it sound sterile or clinical, but in fact it's pretty badass.
Kind of dispels the illusion that we're not pampered.
It's so good I'll probably watch it again today. The diving section is the best, IMO. Imagine someone spinning you around underwater and ripping off parts of your dive gear then having to reassemble it basically blind.
Imagine a junior code review that starts like this (https://youtu.be/AGvvNKBGgUw?t=230): "This entire codebase has been a joke. There hasn't been a single module that you've written during the course of this project that has even remotely resembled perfection. Everything has been sad, weak, and unreadable. And it's all because you're inside your tiny little brain, self-defeating yourself."
Admittedly that only happens during the training phase, though.
There is also the concept of being rolled back due to injury. If you sprain your ankle, for example, you can’t keep going. It’s a persistent fear of all candidates, since it’s a big setback. But the flipside is that apparently you only get rolled back to when the next class catches up to where you’re at right now in training. It’s one of the cooler parts in my opinion, since you can see they truly value the candidates rather than thinking of them as disposable tools (which you occasionally feel like as a programmer...)
But, ultimately, you’re correct: it’s inherently dangerous. Everyone signs up knowing the risks.
EDIT: Found the timestamp: https://youtu.be/AGvvNKBGgUw?t=2266
The emotional impact of going through the training will not be the same the second time around, so they won't take you back for another try.
A story I heard was that the trainers were total arseholes saying he was weak, saying he couldn't finish, and so on - then as soon as he realised he had to stop (broken leg or something) their attitudes completely changed to supportive and caring. Going through that and seeing the other side would definitely ruin the experience if they let you back in.
You'll get what I mean if you watch this documentary.
A different breed.
"We work in the dark - we do what we can - we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art."
- Henry James
This sounds exceptionally dismissive at first read — what’s the point you’re trying to make?
Two things should be noted, however. First, that this is one person's account, not an examination of broader trends. For a broader, data-supported survey of anti-free-speech trends on campus and why it harms students, "The Coddling of the American Mind" is a fantastic and enlightening book. (Incidentally it cites causes from right & left wing extremists, on and off campus, it's not a story of "snowflakes bad".)
Second, it's not necessary for authoritarian/illiberal activists to be in the majority in order to have a profound impact on the culture. "A small group of dedicated individuals" can affect great change even if they're in the extreme minority. If 1% of people on campus are willing to publicly condemn you and do everything they can to destroy your reputation or get you fired, and 4% are willing to go along with it, that can be enough to convince the the other 95% to keep their mouths shut.
None of this is to take away from the fact that this is a refreshing narrative of unity, openness & cultural exchange in the Ivies.
Nassim Taleb explores this exact concept in his essay titled "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority" https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Smart people should be able to deal with subjects outside their comfort zone
"Smart" is a cognitive trait; dealing with what is outside one's comfort zone is a different developmental axis altogether. Smart people are no better able to do this than anyone else, and may even have a harder time.
Cooperation and diversity are both optimal so being complex social creatures we go to lenghts to communicate as widely as we may. I think it all works out quite nicely, thankfully.
But around "normal people" you would never suspect what they've been through (with the exception of PTSD and obvious injuries).
As an undergrad, I got to spend a semester in the ROTC capstone for second semester seniors called “Leadership and Ethics.” I remember walking in on my first day in cargo shorts and flip flops as the only civilian and non-senior student. Everyone else was in full uniform. The class was taught by a Marine Officer.
As a business student, I realized how similar the military and business can be. Most of the theory of leadership and management aims to address a fundamental goal: how do you get people to do something they may not necessarily want to do. Whether that’s making widgets or killing someone, the underlying theories are quite similar.
The main difference I noticed between the two fields was the military’s emphasis on trust. You were to respect a chain of command because you could trust your commanding officer. You were expected to perform your best because you could trust your teammates to do the same. The reason soldiers could rely on this trust was because their superiors had gone through the bullshit and could manage from a seat of positional and experiential authority.
In the business world, they taught management as if having positional authority would automatically create trust and inspire subordinates. MBA students graduate and come into supervisory roles without any prior experience in the underlying work and get mixed results. Part of me wonders whether this is due to ineptitude or simply inexperience.
I remember finishing that course and thinking I really should study engineering because I knew that wanted to play a role in managing and leading technical teams working on innovative problems.
Fast forward a few years and I left my role in public accounting to go into industry, but instead of going into finance or internal accounting I chose to learn development and spend a few years experiencing what it’s like to be a developer, so that one day when I’m managing a technical team I can actually know when they’re giving me a legitimate justification for something, and when they’re just bullshitting me.
Having been a developer for a couple years now, I don’t know how I could have managed a technical team without this experience. I think back to my “career plan” before I took that class and remember thinking that I’d not only be able to find a managerial position upon graduation, but that I’d be able to lead effectively as a 22 year old. What a foolish 20 year old I was!
Anyway, this is really just a roundabout way of saying I loved my class and have tremendous respect for military leadership. I would have loved to have more classes with officers and veterans, and hope my kids get that opportunity someday.
To have you ass kicked every day, in every way imaginable (mentally, physically, athletically, motivational, trivially, lack of sleep and food, academically) while still doing a full course load is really a great start on adult life which can be just as hard and you are always prepared. I doubt the academics are anything like an ivy, just sharing another option that reminded me of the bridging of two worlds of physicality and academic pursuit.
Meeting a SEAL is like getting struck by lightning because there are so many phonies out there stealing valor. I hope it’s not the case.