EA Forums - Banner

Best wishes today for our American Tappers

12345679Next

Replies

  • simp7fan wrote: »
    . They could bypass it by creating a course about Trump, like they do where they study the Simpsons. http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/15-bizarre-college-courses/simpsons-and-philosophy

    Threatening free speech is not a new thing under Trump.

    Very true, he wants to 'expand libel laws' and register people who have an Islamic-tied viewpoint.

    simp7fan wrote: »
    . I think the safe-spaces got to go, because they are an affront to free speech.

    I'm pretty sure you don't know what they are then. Safe spaces are areas (usually internet forums and the like) where people can talk to each other about issues that matter to them, without the fear that something will be posted that is distressing. For example, **** victims won't have to hear ideas about how they did something to deserve it. God knows they get that more than enough in real life.

    There is nothing wrong with this. It is a place where people who are vulnerable in some way don't have to hear opinions about their own experiences that bring up painful memories and distress.

    Free Speech has nothing to do with it. Free Speech is only down to the government, it means that the government cannot force someone to stop stating their view (unless it will lead to unnaceptable harm for others, like hate speech does). That does not at all mean that you can go into someone else's space and distress them without them being able to say 'this is my space, get out.' Rules against that are what are anti-freedom.

    Vulnerable people hear enough things spouted by people who don't care about their own mental state or feelings in the rest of the world, there is nothing wrong with providing a space for ten minutes for them to get away from that kind of stuff. In short, no, safe spaces are not at all how you describe.

    simp7fan wrote: »
    I do dislike the cry-spaces, though, but not necessarily officially.

    This is the problem. A lack of compassion. 'Cry-spaces' is unfair, if you indeed think that people showing emotion and taking care of other people is something to be mocked, then we'll have to disagree on how problematic that is.

    What are they doing to you? If you dislike them, leave them alone. They aren't doing you any harm whatsoever.
  • simp7fan
    4165 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    If safe spaces were to stay within their confines, I still wouldn't agree too much with it for reasons I can't type with a mobile keyboard, but that would be better. The problem is when it becomes de facto rule when not in a safe space. So, maybe your definition is too narrow and mine is too broad. It has affected me, and it does do harm to free speech.

    Quickly, I do think a group that comforts each other is good, like a group therapy session.

    And FYI, I cried today. No shame in it. Just not sure about official groups dedicated to it. My mind can be swayed on that one. :wink: Oh, and I don't know if these are even real. Just heard it in the article, but I didn't like what I heard. Learning more about it is good. Just haven't.
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
  • simp7fan wrote: »
    If safe spaces were to stay within their confines, I still wouldn't agree too much with it for reasons I can't type with a mobile keyboard, but that would be better. The problem is when it becomes de facto rule when not in a safe space. So, maybe your definition is too narrow and mine is too broad. It has affected me, and it does do harm to free speech.


    Well, no, I'm using the actual definition. They aren't harmful to free speech for reasons I've already pointed to. You have the right to say almost anything you want, but not in a person's or group's own space if they don't want you to. The same way that if you tell a joke that's particularly offensive in a comedy club, the club has the right to not allow you in again. Again, you don't have to have the ability to say whatever you like wherever you want.

    Again, there is a lack of compassion inherent in denying people safe spaces, but you haven't addressed it.

    simp7fan wrote: »
    And FYI, I cried today. No shame in it. Just not sure about official groups dedicated to it.

    You used crying in a rather mocking way. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
    simp7fan wrote: »
    My mind can be swayed on that one. :wink: Oh, and I don't know if these are even real. Just heard it in the article, but I didn't like what I heard. Learning more about it is good. Just haven't.

    Which article is this?
  • Irony is dead. President-Elect Trump tweeted on the need for safe spaces in the wake of Mike Pence’s “harassment” at a recent performance of Hamilton. Someone really needs to take away his Twitter account.
  • Irony is dead. President-Elect Trump tweeted on the need for safe spaces in the wake of Mike Pence’s “harassment” at a recent performance of Hamilton. Someone really needs to take away his Twitter account.

    I was just reading on other sites people pointing out the exact same thing. Him and his followers won't realise the irony though.

    Drumpf can't seem to stop himself from logging onto Twitter and embarrassing himself. He really needs his Twitter privileges revoked by his staff, for his sake! It won't happen though, to the benefit of comedians everywhere.

  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    parkern1 wrote: »
    Safe spaces are areas (usually internet forums and the like) where people can talk to each other about issues that matter to them, without the fear that something will be posted that is distressing. For example, **** victims won't have to hear ideas about how they did something to deserve it. God knows they get that more than enough in real life.

    There is nothing wrong with this. It is a place where people who are vulnerable in some way don't have to hear opinions about their own experiences that bring up painful memories and distress.

    Free Speech has nothing to do with it. Free Speech is only down to the government, it means that the government cannot force someone to stop stating their view (unless it will lead to unnaceptable harm for others, like hate speech does). That does not at all mean that you can go into someone else's space and distress them without them being able to say 'this is my space, get out.' Rules against that are what are anti-freedom.

    Vulnerable people hear enough things spouted by people who don't care about their own mental state or feelings in the rest of the world, there is nothing wrong with providing a space for ten minutes for them to get away from that kind of stuff. In short, no, safe spaces are not at all how you describe.

    Late response. Let me push back on this at least a bit. Much of the public discourse about safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the like has been in the context of their use in a number of prominent universities. Certainly in that arena there is a very real tension between the use of safe spaces on the one hand and free speech rights on the other.

    Post edited by KrustyBrand on
  • Responding in a good and useful way to the topic of safe spaces will take a real keyboard along with more dedication than I'm willing to give today. From your reply, parkern, the only thing I'll manage to do without the proper dedication will be to upset you more while making myself appear worse (than your impression that I had mocked anything (I hadn't; I really did cry...)).

    I'm sorry I don't know what article I was reading. I thought it was here but it might have been elsewhere. My point was simply that I didn't know much about cry spaces, so I'll retract my stated opinion on them which was based only on hearing about it once.

    Thank you for your response, KB.
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
  • News via sky news.
    A petition has been filled to recount votes in key states.


    Green Party leader Jill Stein has filed a petition to recount the presidential votes cast in Wisconsin.

    An election official said Ms Stein filed the request about an hour-and-a-half before a 5pm CST deadline.

    The Wisconsin Elections Commission said it is "preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States".

    The Green Party has been raising money to pay for votes to be recounted in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania; crucial swing states during the election and all won by Donald Trump.Although there is no evidence of election tampering in those states, Ms Stein, who stood as the party's candidate in the election, has cited "anomalies" as grounds to mount a challenge in the three so-called Rust Belt states.

    The deadlines for filing in Pennsylvania and Michigan are Monday and Wednesday of next week.

    Green Party spokesman George Martin said "the American public needs to have it investigated to make sure our votes count".Ms Stein's fundraising website added: "These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the US election system is." Donald Trump won Wisconsin, which was worth 10 electoral college votes, with 1,409,467 popular votes (47.9% of the total).

    Hillary Clinton came second with 1,382,210 votes (46.9%) and Ms Stein polled 30,980 votes (1.1%).

    Wisconsin is legally required to recount votes at a candidate's request providing he or she can meet the costs, which election officials estimate to be up to $1m (£800,735).

    The Green Party has so far raised $5.2m (£4,163,820).



    What do you think of this?
    My friend list is full

    Live life to the full

    Love you Davo Rest in paradise
  • KrustyBrand
    15340 posts Member
    edited November 2016
    HomerND84 wrote: »
    What do you think of this?

    You could see this coming if you’ve been following the news this past week. You might want to argue that it’s worth the effort to more definitively investigate and “normalize” the election results in the key states under scrutiny, but as a way to flip the results of the electoral college, it’s probably a waste of time. The voting irregularities necessary to achieve that flip would have to be large and systematic. Of course, nothing about this election would surprise me any more, but it seems to me the rather unexpected result is much more likely to be due to systematic polling biases.

    That’s not to say that Putin hasn’t been actively interfering in the American electoral process in other ways, and there have already been bi-partisan calls in the Congress to investigate.
    Post edited by KrustyBrand on
  • If any anomalies are found then it doesn't have to flip the electoral outcome to expose a failed system, one that might be fixed by awarding votes to the popular winner.
    Here is my signature. Or maybe it's not.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!