When Ideology clouds logic: influences of political, cultural or other bias in critical thinking PART TWO
When Ideology clouds logic: influences of political, cultural or other bias in critical thinking
PART TWO
SAFE SPACES
So how does irrational thought cloud logic and cause people to drop friendships and ignore rationality? Lets examine the topic which caused a normally rational person to turn into a self righteous social justice warrior (SJW) and end friendships because I won't think like they do (or lie to them about it making them feel better).
It all started because if the University of Chicago's "anti-safe spaces letter", found here: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12657684/chicago-safe-spaces-trigger-warnings-letter
One may think that safe spaces are a good thing, and that these are important for life in general. So why would I state anything against safe spaces?
Lets start at the beginning and work slowly. When I am presented with new information I tend to think like an investigator (imagine that) and work with things that I can validate.
So this whole argument starts off on a sour note for me simply because of the definition of "safe space".
What is the definition offered by the author? Well, as you can see in the article, there isn't one. There are links to other articles (two) but there isn't a clear definition of "safe spaces". Nor is there indication of which use may be implied.
What did the original poster I talked to on [site name deleted] say was the definition of a safe space?
And what else did i find out about the general definition? (ignoring historical use)
Ok, so we have two similar definitions. I also noted that there is a historical definition that is completely different per the Wiki link and reference. That is important to know for context.
So what is the official definition per the law?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/%22safe+space%22
http://thelawdictionary.org/search2/?cx=partner-pub-2225482417208543%3A5634069718&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Safe+space%22&x=0&y=0
there isn't one.
(if anyone finds a legal definition, please forward the legal reference page and tome where it can be found - thanks)
We can now officially state that the term is subjective and open to the interpretation of the individual.
This, in turn, must also mean the following: If there is a racist, sexist student body minority, the school is required, if they support "safe spaces" to allow them to have a safe area to share their racist, sexist and or other prejudices.
Hmm..... not good, right? Lets look at this another way. Lets look at a phrase: "Threats to society belong in jail"
Surely anyone who disagrees with this is a sociopath without the ability to think logically, right?
My first question: who defines what is a threat to society?
Then I want to know: what constitutes a threat?
Why do I approach this so strangely? Lets look at something that can clear the air about why I am looking at this so strangely (apparently, it's strange to some): Seatbelt laws and Cell phones.
The seat-belt law requires users to wear the seat-belt when driving. Its logical. I've been on thousands of vehicle accidents and I can say, from experience, that they really do save lives. The statistics overwhelmingly show this to be a fact. (no, we're not discussing outlier events at the moment, so STFU about your college sweetheart's kid sister's cousin's boyfriend's best friend's brother's sex partner's sister who drowned because she wore one... it's not evidence, nor is it factual unless you can show the incident report with evidence that demonstrates the argument with statistical probability of continual repitition). So we know that the obvious "threat" is to life, safety and security of the wearer if it's not used. Logical, right?
But is it?
The seat-belt law affects only the person who wears it. Whereas the use of a cell phone while driving affects every other vehicle, passenger, pedestrian and property on the road or around the driver.
So you can be pulled over and fined (or worse, depending on the situation and interaction of the police) for not wearing a seat-belt, but you can't be pulled over for using a cell while driving (at least, not here). Some places you can - but they also allow for hands free use devices.
We can prove cell phone use distracts and is considered more threatening to not only your own safety, but to the safety of other drivers, passengers, pedestrians and property around the vehicle... so why is it legal to use a cell while driving? Some states say no cell "unless utilising a hands free device"... the difference is minor: there is still a distraction and potential threat to all other nearby drivers etc.
The same for "safe spaces".
There are already laws that prohibit any organization from prejudice based upon your rights, be they about : sex, religion, sexuality, beliefs, political attachment, race, origin, nationality etc
There are already "safe spaces" in any college as well: dorm rooms, meeting rooms, libraries, Common areas (you have the right to peaceable assembly)
So why is there a need to build in a special "safe space" and drive the cost of education up due to the requirements of additional "safe spaces" when every college campus (from technical schools to ivy league universities) already has said safe spaces and requirements to abide by the law?
Wait, it gets more confusing when you read the arguments of pro-safe space people:
They want each individual to be guaranteed a safe space?
Is that rational?
It surely isn't going to be cheap... so why advocate for it?
And why isn't your dorm room a safe space?
Most importantly, from what I can find, each college has third party arbiters available to mediate and decide contentious situations. This is typical of most large organizations anymore, and many others followed suit. Rather than immediately moving to litigation there is a time of arbitration for the sake of advancement with minimal cost and maximum efficiency. It makes sense to allow third party arbiters the ability to mediate contested situations.
Sound familiar? It's because most people who have or own credit cards or similar contractual devices between dissimilar parties have similar arbitration clauses built in to said contract. It's the same thing as the common utilisation of a "safe space" to argue a point of contention to the faculty staff. The difference is that it's called arbitration, not "safe space". (note: not all safe spaces are used in arbitration)
More to the point: it is legally binding and requires all parties to actively participate, unlike a "safe space" meeting.
In my logical thinking, what the advocates for "safe spaces" want is to build a common protected physical area to insure the safe and protected sharing of like minded people.
Will the students allow for extremists to use the area? like the KKK? Fanatical religious groups advocating for hostility?
If you build a "safe space" then you must, by law, allow these groups to proliferate in and or utilise said safe spaces, as it is defined as an area for "individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization".
This is not delusional thinking, but rather a logical extrapolation of the events proven by time and historical precedent such as the arguments provided under the 1st amendment. Everyone knows that the 1st amendment protects not only your opinion but also that of the radicals like racists, fanatics, delusional crackpots and comedians.
Problem is: all it takes is one idiot with an agenda to make it legally binding to allow hate groups to share or utilise the safe spaces. If the KKK is willing to legally fight for the right to parade down streets, they will fight for other rights, don't you think?
I am against the argument for "safe spaces" simply because:
1- it's unnecessary and a huge waste of money, time and resources.
2- There are already places you can use for private, semi-private or public congregation and It's already a requirement, per the law, to allow you to congregate peacefully.
3- the Constitution, and therefore, the Rule of Law
There are already available meeting rooms in any campus you are allowed to use, simply by signing up and requesting the room for a specific time and date. Plus, there are already existing, functional, well proven and utilised laws protecting you from persecution. Topped off with the arbitration laws present in most states and organizations, there is absolutely no need for additional costs and "safe spaces"!
These are my main arguments against the situation of safe spaces and the argument of guilt.
With regard to guilt - When you make judgements based upon a known lack of information, then it is bound to be a poor judgement that is not supported by the evidence, especially when it is known that all the evidence is not available. (also known as: stupidity)
With regard to safe spaces - why argue for something that is a legal requirement already? It's like arguing that since you have the right to freedom of movement, the gov't should provide you with transportation.
When you allow your bias and belief to cloud your rationality, you will always look the fool and end up losing important stuff, be it friends, family, respect or even worse.
PART TWO
SAFE SPACES
So how does irrational thought cloud logic and cause people to drop friendships and ignore rationality? Lets examine the topic which caused a normally rational person to turn into a self righteous social justice warrior (SJW) and end friendships because I won't think like they do (or lie to them about it making them feel better).
It all started because if the University of Chicago's "anti-safe spaces letter", found here: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12657684/chicago-safe-spaces-trigger-warnings-letter
One may think that safe spaces are a good thing, and that these are important for life in general. So why would I state anything against safe spaces?
Lets start at the beginning and work slowly. When I am presented with new information I tend to think like an investigator (imagine that) and work with things that I can validate.
So this whole argument starts off on a sour note for me simply because of the definition of "safe space".
What is the definition offered by the author? Well, as you can see in the article, there isn't one. There are links to other articles (two) but there isn't a clear definition of "safe spaces". Nor is there indication of which use may be implied.
What did the original poster I talked to on [site name deleted] say was the definition of a safe space?
"anywhere someone who's finding themselves challenged at every turn with an environment they can retreat to and regroup. "
And what else did i find out about the general definition? (ignoring historical use)
"safe space has been extended to refer to a space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization, typically on a university campus"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space
Ok, so we have two similar definitions. I also noted that there is a historical definition that is completely different per the Wiki link and reference. That is important to know for context.
So what is the official definition per the law?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/%22safe+space%22
http://thelawdictionary.org/search2/?cx=partner-pub-2225482417208543%3A5634069718&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Safe+space%22&x=0&y=0
there isn't one.
(if anyone finds a legal definition, please forward the legal reference page and tome where it can be found - thanks)
We can now officially state that the term is subjective and open to the interpretation of the individual.
This, in turn, must also mean the following: If there is a racist, sexist student body minority, the school is required, if they support "safe spaces" to allow them to have a safe area to share their racist, sexist and or other prejudices.
Hmm..... not good, right? Lets look at this another way. Lets look at a phrase: "Threats to society belong in jail"
Surely anyone who disagrees with this is a sociopath without the ability to think logically, right?
My first question: who defines what is a threat to society?
Then I want to know: what constitutes a threat?
Why do I approach this so strangely? Lets look at something that can clear the air about why I am looking at this so strangely (apparently, it's strange to some): Seatbelt laws and Cell phones.
The seat-belt law requires users to wear the seat-belt when driving. Its logical. I've been on thousands of vehicle accidents and I can say, from experience, that they really do save lives. The statistics overwhelmingly show this to be a fact. (no, we're not discussing outlier events at the moment, so STFU about your college sweetheart's kid sister's cousin's boyfriend's best friend's brother's sex partner's sister who drowned because she wore one... it's not evidence, nor is it factual unless you can show the incident report with evidence that demonstrates the argument with statistical probability of continual repitition). So we know that the obvious "threat" is to life, safety and security of the wearer if it's not used. Logical, right?
But is it?
The seat-belt law affects only the person who wears it. Whereas the use of a cell phone while driving affects every other vehicle, passenger, pedestrian and property on the road or around the driver.
So you can be pulled over and fined (or worse, depending on the situation and interaction of the police) for not wearing a seat-belt, but you can't be pulled over for using a cell while driving (at least, not here). Some places you can - but they also allow for hands free use devices.
We can prove cell phone use distracts and is considered more threatening to not only your own safety, but to the safety of other drivers, passengers, pedestrians and property around the vehicle... so why is it legal to use a cell while driving? Some states say no cell "unless utilising a hands free device"... the difference is minor: there is still a distraction and potential threat to all other nearby drivers etc.
The same for "safe spaces".
There are already laws that prohibit any organization from prejudice based upon your rights, be they about : sex, religion, sexuality, beliefs, political attachment, race, origin, nationality etc
There are already "safe spaces" in any college as well: dorm rooms, meeting rooms, libraries, Common areas (you have the right to peaceable assembly)
So why is there a need to build in a special "safe space" and drive the cost of education up due to the requirements of additional "safe spaces" when every college campus (from technical schools to ivy league universities) already has said safe spaces and requirements to abide by the law?
Wait, it gets more confusing when you read the arguments of pro-safe space people:
I think if you're paying to go there, they ought to be using some of the money you paid to provide a safe space for you to retreat to, and regroup, and gather the determination to move on.
They want each individual to be guaranteed a safe space?
Is that rational?
It surely isn't going to be cheap... so why advocate for it?
And why isn't your dorm room a safe space?
Most importantly, from what I can find, each college has third party arbiters available to mediate and decide contentious situations. This is typical of most large organizations anymore, and many others followed suit. Rather than immediately moving to litigation there is a time of arbitration for the sake of advancement with minimal cost and maximum efficiency. It makes sense to allow third party arbiters the ability to mediate contested situations.
Sound familiar? It's because most people who have or own credit cards or similar contractual devices between dissimilar parties have similar arbitration clauses built in to said contract. It's the same thing as the common utilisation of a "safe space" to argue a point of contention to the faculty staff. The difference is that it's called arbitration, not "safe space". (note: not all safe spaces are used in arbitration)
More to the point: it is legally binding and requires all parties to actively participate, unlike a "safe space" meeting.
In my logical thinking, what the advocates for "safe spaces" want is to build a common protected physical area to insure the safe and protected sharing of like minded people.
Will the students allow for extremists to use the area? like the KKK? Fanatical religious groups advocating for hostility?
If you build a "safe space" then you must, by law, allow these groups to proliferate in and or utilise said safe spaces, as it is defined as an area for "individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization".
This is not delusional thinking, but rather a logical extrapolation of the events proven by time and historical precedent such as the arguments provided under the 1st amendment. Everyone knows that the 1st amendment protects not only your opinion but also that of the radicals like racists, fanatics, delusional crackpots and comedians.
Problem is: all it takes is one idiot with an agenda to make it legally binding to allow hate groups to share or utilise the safe spaces. If the KKK is willing to legally fight for the right to parade down streets, they will fight for other rights, don't you think?
I am against the argument for "safe spaces" simply because:
1- it's unnecessary and a huge waste of money, time and resources.
2- There are already places you can use for private, semi-private or public congregation and It's already a requirement, per the law, to allow you to congregate peacefully.
3- the Constitution, and therefore, the Rule of Law
There are already available meeting rooms in any campus you are allowed to use, simply by signing up and requesting the room for a specific time and date. Plus, there are already existing, functional, well proven and utilised laws protecting you from persecution. Topped off with the arbitration laws present in most states and organizations, there is absolutely no need for additional costs and "safe spaces"!
These are my main arguments against the situation of safe spaces and the argument of guilt.
With regard to guilt - When you make judgements based upon a known lack of information, then it is bound to be a poor judgement that is not supported by the evidence, especially when it is known that all the evidence is not available. (also known as: stupidity)
With regard to safe spaces - why argue for something that is a legal requirement already? It's like arguing that since you have the right to freedom of movement, the gov't should provide you with transportation.
When you allow your bias and belief to cloud your rationality, you will always look the fool and end up losing important stuff, be it friends, family, respect or even worse.
Comments
Post a Comment