Would Jesus condone corporal punishment?

[+Paranoid Android]

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK I definitely understand hesitation but we currently have a mental health crisis , and we've been mentally unfit as a society for much longer IMO, so im down for trying new things on a public level. 

I totally agree with you that we have a mental health crisis. Sadly, I think part of the reason our young people are so at risk of mental health issues is a prolonged exposure of overprotectiveness. By not exposing children to acceptable risks at young ages they aren't developing the coping skills needed to deal with bigger risks when they get older. In that sense, the fact that students began self regulating safe spaces for themselves in the past couple of years is entirely expected. Maybe it will help with the mental health right now, but it's reinforcing the tag that it's ok to be overprotective and those university students are going to deal with a lot tougher things once they graduate than a person on the other side of campus who has a difference of opinion to them. 

In any case, I'd love to continue this in more detail but it's Friday night, I'm nearing bed and the weekends are virtually always away from the internet so feel free to respond (I will read it), but I can't debate it further. Enjoy your weekend  

~ PA

 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There was no "safe place" for the Civil Rights movement, Sheri. Those folks got down in the trenches and fought tooth and nail to make the whole country a "safe place". Some of them gave their lives for the cause. 

As I Grew Older

It was a long time ago.
I have almost forgotten my dream.
But it was there then,
In front of me,
Bright like a sun—
My dream.
And then the wall rose,
Rose slowly,
Slowly,
Between me and my dream.
Rose until it touched the sky—
The wall.
Shadow.
I am black.
I lie down in the shadow.
No longer the light of my dream before me,
Above me.
Only the thick wall.
Only the shadow.
My hands!
My dark hands!
Break through the wall!
Find my dream!
Help me to shatter this darkness,
To smash this night,
To break this shadow
Into a thousand lights of sun,
Into a thousand whirling dreams
Of sun!

Langston Hughes

Martin Luther King gave a voice to the oppressed and vulnerable, quite a few people thought they just needed to accept Jim Crow.

Letter From Birmingham Jail,  to me he was creating a “safe place” stating the things that needed to be said 

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Thanks for the Langston Hughes poem, love him.

[+Paranoid Android]

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Ouch. 
 

In real time: this idea would be viable in a work force where some bosses use intimidation and rob their employees of this “safe space” a place they can express their opinions without fear of retribution or threat of job loss, where some bosses create systems that shield themselves rom unwanted criticism. 

The actual reality is in a lot of work environments a person still has no say, their opinion isn’t even considered. I think our colleges allowing for safe space is a step in the right direction. 
I am involved in labor suit against an employer and on paper the idea is the employee has the right to be protected from retaliation, basically giving an opinion about his employer being harmful to him/her and yet the reality is the owner gets around it by threatening job loss. 
 

To me safe space isn’t a new idea Kurt Lewin created safe spaces and productivity increased. I don’t see it as a threat to free speech, or the end of different options, but as a bridge to see real change in areas that need to empower and protect the vulnerable I don’t  see it as immunity from criticism either but that one can actually speak their mind without being attacked.

Not unlike what  we are doing. to me a “safe space” opens this up to those that feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. I am thinking it is a stepping stone to including more in a conversation. 
 

We have regular posters on here who are uncomfortable with differing opinions and have been on for years and have not gotten anymore comfortable. Some need to feel safe to even entertain experiment with new ideas. Look at our thread on walking the  others shoes very few feel comfortable even pretending to have express different opinions. I highly doubt that safe spaces are going to end free speech and create an monogamous ideology in our lifetime. 

I understand the importance of the concept of safe spaces in regards to hostile work environments. It's an essential part of a healthy work environment to have communication, and if safe spaces is how it's done then so be it. To me, though, it's not too different from unionising. Not as formalised as a union, but with a similar agenda - fairness for workers and workers' rights. 

That's not what I'm talking about. As you say, safe spaces have been organised by universities for years. But self-regulating safe spaces is a new phenomena. And the reason why I am speaking against this particular movement is because of the complete absurdity in some of the spaces that they've self-chosen. I don't know if it was in the video I linked before or another one I watched recently but around the world there are safe spaces opening for virtually every single minority group you care to name. On one campus highlighted in the video I saw there was even a safe space designated for anyone who deviates from the norm - "norm" here in this context meant anyone not a white heterosexual male. So basically, straight white males excluded from this space.  

And why do the safe spaces exist? In some cases they pop up because there's a keynote speaker on campus who holds a controversial view. Like a lecturer with conservative political and social views who is inevitably going to be asked the hugely controversial question of why he or believes in only two genders, some of the students need a safe space on the other side of campus to shelter themselves from such shocking backward views.

Safe spaces is one option. Toughening up is another. Again, not taking anything away from legitimate hostile work environments and the need for workers to voice their concerns.

In any case, like I mentioned to F77 above, I'm not going to be available for a few days with the weekend here. I will read your response but sadly can't delve deeper. It's a shame - I'd love to go back and forth because this topic is far more complex than can really be discussed in a single post. Have a great weekend, Sheri  

[+and-then]

Sorry for coming to this one so late.  Just wanted to say that He used violence Himself on one occasion that we know of from scripture.  He was angry about the Temple being used for commerce.  To my knowledge that is the only recorded instance where he lost His temper and went off on people.  

As to the scenario with the 3 year old, no, I don't believe He would chastise a child of that age who had not followed instructions.  In fact, I can't imagine most parents behaving that way after their negligence caused the child to come to harm.  He was a Jew and lived His early life the same as His people did in the culture of that day.  

In a general sense, I believe He would condone corporal punishment on children who were old enough to understand that something was wrong or dangerous yet they chose to do it anyway.  Children are not capable of making the right choices for their own safety and well-being until they are taught which things are okay and safe and which can be destructive or dangerous.  That doesn't mean He'd beat a child that was too young to understand the lesson that they needed to learn.

As to His tolerance for violence, the scripture seems pretty clear that when He returns His mission is going to be one of settling accounts with the enemies of His people and with those who are literally destroying the earth.  I remember hearing one Wit put it like this - People will be looking for a cuddly, gentle Teddy bear and they're going to see an angry Grizzly instead  

[+Desertrat56]

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Sorry, Sheri but I have to go with Android on this one. College campus should reflect society at large, not some one-sided ideological distortion of reality. We can't bring people together if we're going to set them apart for philosophical, religious, social or ideological differences. College should be a smorgasbord of variety, not everyone walking in lockstep to one drummer. As in the world at large, the opportunity is always there to exercise freedom of association and from association if one so chooses. Neither should be mandatory. No one should be subjected to abuse or marginalized because of a difference, be it social, economic, sexual, political or religious or anything that sets them apart without harming others. 

I think there is a difference between what you think is a "safe space" for the sake of letting people be "protected" from ideas they don't agree with and a safe space that insists that no one be attacked for  any reason.  What Sheri said about someone sending her inappropriate pictures is an attack, not freedom of speech, but possibly (my assumption) is that being men, you and Paranoid Android have never been attacked in ways that women are attacked every day, and then told to "suck it up, what is the harm, etc."

In order to change society we need to talk about things with inclusion of the emotions that are evoked by certain behaviours, the expectations everyone has and how some of those expectations may be idealistic or sociopathic.  There has to be a distinction between the two.

[+Paranoid Android]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think there is a difference between what you think is a "safe space" for the sake of letting people be "protected" from ideas they don't agree with and a safe space that insists that no one be attacked for  any reason.  What Sheri said about someone sending her inappropriate pictures is an attack, not freedom of speech, but possibly (my assumption) is that being men, you and Paranoid Android have never been attacked in ways that women are attacked every day, and then told to "suck it up, what is the harm, etc."

In order to change society we need to talk about things with inclusion of the emotions that are evoked by certain behaviours, the expectations everyone has and how some of those expectations may be idealistic or sociopathic.  There has to be a distinction between the two.

I tend to agree with the general premise of your post. We do have to separate the shielding of an attack (like sending unwanted sexual pics) and the shielding of an opinion. That statement is one that I can make regardless of whether I am a male or a female. But why bring my gender into it? And put words in our (mine and Hammerclaw's specifically, but I'm sure you intended it more generally to men as a whole) mouths - I have never told a woman to "suck it up, what's the harm", or any variation of it for the life they experience as women. You're right, I have never been attacked in ways that women are. And since that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the comments I've made I'll leave it there.

If it helps, my girlfriend takes my side, even though she's a woman. Though she also leans to traditional conservative values more than I do (I sometimes joke that she's more of a misogynist than I am, haha). 

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I tend to agree with the general premise of your post. We do have to separate the shielding of an attack (like sending unwanted sexual pics) and the shielding of an opinion. That statement is one that I can make regardless of whether I am a male or a female. But why bring my gender into it? And put words in our (mine and Hammerclaw's specifically, but I'm sure you intended it more generally to men as a whole) mouths - I have never told a woman to "suck it up, what's the harm", or any variation of it for the life they experience as women. You're right, I have never been attacked in ways that women are. And since that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the comments I've made I'll leave it there.

If it helps, my girlfriend takes my side, even though she's a woman. Though she also leans to traditional conservative values more than I do (I sometimes joke that she's more of a misogynist than I am, haha). 

Maybe I think of "safe space" differently.  I had never heard of this until today and for me a "safe space" would be a place where you could relax, study, eat or what ever without being accosted.  I don't get the idea that it would mean that any one could stand on a soap box and feel safe proclaiming their political views.  That makes no sense to me, but that seems to be what you and Hammerclaw are talking about. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

50 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Safe spaces is one option. Toughening up is another.

Yea, I'm never really a fan of the 'toughening' up argument, too easy to say when you don't belong to a group that has been a major target for mistreatment.  In the US, if my impressions are right, you would personally have won the demographics lottery, especially when you were still a Christian; white, heterosexual, male, Christian - those qualities have been targets for significant oppression, systemic and social, like never.

Quote

On one campus highlighted in the video I saw there was even a safe space designated for anyone who deviates from the norm - "norm" here in this context meant anyone not a white heterosexual male. So basically, straight white males excluded from this space.

See previous comment.  Ain't like the views of straight while males are in short supply.  On what basis can straight white males relate to the experience of women or blacks?  We could say, "I think I've suffered oppression similar to what women have suffered and thus can relate and thus I have an educated opinion", but I don't know how we could really know that, or one could say, "if I was a woman...", which is even more of a non-starter.

20 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

But why bring my gender into it? And put words in our (mine and Hammerclaw's specifically, but I'm sure you intended it more generally to men as a whole) mouths - I have never told a woman to "suck it up, what's the harm", or any variation of it for the life they experience as women.

Because gender has historically, and in some places currently, has been the attribute that those in power have oppressed more than any other.  That's great that you've never told a woman that, but you must know that there are a lot of dudes who have.

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're right, I have never been attacked in ways that women are.

Me either.  Because of that I think it severely restricts the validity of yours and my evaluation of when 'they just need to toughen up' is apt.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

I understand the importance of the concept of safe spaces in regards to hostile work environments. It's an essential part of a healthy work environment to have communication, and if safe spaces is how it's done then so be it. To me, though, it's not too different from unionising. Not as formalised as a union, but with a similar agenda - fairness for workers and workers' rights. 

That's not what I'm talking about. As you say, safe spaces have been organised by universities for years. But self-regulating safe spaces is a new phenomena. And the reason why I am speaking against this particular movement is because of the complete absurdity in some of the spaces that they've self-chosen. I don't know if it was in the video I linked before or another one I watched recently but around the world there are safe spaces opening for virtually every single minority group you care to name. On one campus highlighted in the video I saw there was even a safe space designated for anyone who deviates from the norm - "norm" here in this context meant anyone not a white heterosexual male. So basically, straight white males excluded from this space.  

And why do the safe spaces exist? In some cases they pop up because there's a keynote speaker on campus who holds a controversial view. Like a lecturer with conservative political and social views who is inevitably going to be asked the hugely controversial question of why he or believes in only two genders, some of the students need a safe space on the other side of campus to shelter themselves from such shocking backward views.

Safe spaces is one option. Toughening up is another. Again, not taking anything away from legitimate hostile work environments and the need for workers to voice their concerns.

In any case, like I mentioned to F77 above, I'm not going to be available for a few days with the weekend here. I will read your response but sadly can't delve deeper. It's a shame - I'd love to go back and forth because this topic is far more complex than can really be discussed in a single post. Have a great weekend, Sheri  

I can see having perimeters or boundaries  you have a good point people can take anything to far, but I don’t think a person is gonna feel a sense of empowerment or confidence if they already feel marginalized by just being told to toughen up (albeit it is an option) and told they are threatening free speech. For me this is going to far. I am not seeing the value of harmful free speech in the first place.  I think a strong support system and validation and a place to talk about the reality of feeling marginalized is a much better alternative with the goal of promoting the exchange and exploration of the marginalized ideas and finding ways to address them is a good idea.  I think a safe place is a constructive idea as long as the objective is to get the needed skills/tools one needs to feel empowered, I just don’t see it as a threat to free speech but more being guided by compassion for those that are marginalized. Some people have thicker skins, but if one doesn’t and they feel vulnerable I think they should have a place they can go, One of the most important aspects of self care and a sense of self efficacy is feeling safe and having a support system would be a great place to start. 
 

UM created this safe space for me and I was able to move through the shock of another person using free speech to send me Penis pictures unsolicited. And to UM’s credit not once did anyone imply I brought this on myself or that I needed to toughen up. This helped me immensely get on my feet and move forward. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Paranoid Android]

28 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Maybe I think of "safe space" differently.  I had never heard of this until today and for me a "safe space" would be a place where you could relax, study, eat or what ever without being accosted.  I don't get the idea that it would mean that any one could stand on a soap box and feel safe proclaiming their political views.  That makes no sense to me, but that seems to be what you and Hammerclaw are talking about. 

But why can't you just sit in the university cafeteria to relax, study, eat or whatever? No one should be accosted. But when safe spaces are set up to shield people from a specific event. For example, a conservative lecturer is coming to speak at the university. Inevitably a student is going to ask the conservative lecturer why he believes in only two genders. Some safe spaces were set up on the other side of campus for students to go so they could avoid any mention of "only two genders" because it's so terrible hearing how someone can have such a different view and they wanted people to have a space to retreat to if they wanted to get away from the horrible feelings they must be going through when confronted with a different opinion. 

I know I'm using very emotive language here, I'm trying to get my point across as to why I find safe spaces as they are currently being organised on university campuses to be an issue. I don't know how you took from this that I want people to have safety to stand on a soap box and profess their ideology. I haven't even addressed this matter, let alone given an opinion on it. Maybe Hammerclaw is different

Anyway, good night. I'll catch everyone next week  

[+Paranoid Android]

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yea, I'm never really a fan of the 'toughening' up argument, too easy to say when you don't belong to a group that has been a major target for mistreatment.  In the US, if my impressions are right, you would personally have won the demographics lottery, especially when you were still a Christian; white, heterosexual, male, Christian - those qualities have been targets for significant oppression, systemic and social, like never.

See previous comment.  Ain't like the views of straight while males are in short supply.  On what basis can straight white males relate to the experience of women or blacks?  We could say, "I think I've suffered oppression similar to what women have suffered and thus can relate and thus I have an educated opinion", but I don't know how we could really know that, or one could say, "if I was a woman...", which is even more of a non-starter.

Because gender has historically, and in some places currently, has been the attribute that those in power have oppressed more than any other.  That's great that you've never told a woman that, but you must know that there are a lot of dudes who have.

Me either.  Because of that I think it severely restricts the validity of yours and my evaluation of when 'they just need to toughen up' is apt.

Keep in mind that I was very context specific on what I was saying "toughen up" to. Please do not extend my comment beyond its intended use.

The rest of your post basically reads "you're a straight white male,  you cannot comprehend the plight of minorities therefore you have no valid opinion in this debate unless you agree with them".

I know that's an extreme oversimplification but I really have a distaste for identity politics.

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Keep in mind that I was very context specific on what I was saying "toughen up" to. Please do not extend my comment beyond its intended use.

The rest of your post basically reads "you're a straight white male,  you cannot comprehend the plight of minorities therefore you have no valid opinion in this debate unless you agree with them".

I know that's an extreme oversimplification but I really have a distaste for gender politics.

Robbie, why do you conclude that toughening up across the board is a better resolution than creating a safe space? Why do you see a “ safe space” as an affront to free speech in every case? 

Is there a particular situation you are upset about? 
 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

20 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Keep in mind that I was very context specific on what I was saying "toughen up" to. Please do not extend my comment beyond its intended use.

The rest of your post basically reads "you're a straight white male,  you cannot comprehend the plight of minorities therefore you have no valid opinion in this debate unless you agree with them".

I know that's an extreme oversimplification but I really have a distaste for gender politics.

Robbie we are just offering many different perspectives, LG isn’t implying you are insensitive to those that are marginalized. 
 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

Everyone should be protected from bullying and harassment. I think that's given. Yet if one withholds one's ideas and beliefs from the give and take of normal human discourse, elevates themselves above the rest to avoid discussion, criticism, the distress of having strongly held beliefs questioned, is that not self-marginalization? Do men and women deserve special places where they can gather to avoid criticism and discussion with the opposite gender? Does everyone deserve a safe place, or just a privileged few? If we apply the concept of a safe place as I describe above across the board, evenly and fairly for everyone, will the net result not be to kill discussion? Will we not find ourselves treading gingerly through verbal minefields to find our special little clique we feel comfortable with? Just an alternate perspective on this safe space concept.

http://www.processwork.org/files/Hiroko Sano Final Project.pdf

Edited January 10, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Everyone should be protected from bullying and harassment. I think that's given. Yet if one withholds one's ideas and beliefs from the give and take of normal human discourse, elevates themselves above the rest to avoid discussion, criticism, the distress of having strongly held beliefs questioned, is that not self-marginalization? Do men and women deserve special places where they can gather to avoid criticism and discussion with the opposite gender? Does everyone deserve a safe place, or just a privileged few? If we apply the concept of a safe place as I describe above across the board, evenly and fairly for everyone, will the net result not be to kill discussion? Will we not find ourselves treading gingerly through verbal minefields to find our special little clique we feel comfortable with? Just an alternate perspective on this safe space concept.

http://www.processwork.org/files/Hiroko Sano Final Project.pdf

 

“WHAT IS A SAFE SPACE? On college campuses, a “safe space” is usually one of two things. Classrooms can be designated as academic safe spaces, meaning that students are encouraged to take risks and engage in intellectual discussions about topics that may feel uncomfortable. In this type of safe space, free speech is the goal.
The term “safe space” is also used to describe groups on college campuses that seek to provide respect and emotional security, often for individuals from historically marginalized groups.”
 

“So when students ask for a safe space, we’re not trying to limit the flow of ideas on campus or to disengage from the community. Impeding free speech and censoring opinions that may not align with our own isn’t the objective.

Instead, we’re seeking a tool to help us take care of our mental health so we can continue actively engaging in our classes, extracurriculars, and other areas of our lives.

Safe spaces don’t coddle us or blind us from the realities of our world. They offer us a brief opportunity to be vulnerable and let down our guard without fear of judgment or harm. 

They allow us to build resilience so that when we’re outside of these spaces we can engage maturely with our peers and be the strongest, most authentic versions of ourselves.”

A place allocated to one who is in need of support and gentleness on a topic for whatever reasons while the rest of the campus is free speech as usual. 

https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/safe-spaces-college#6

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[Duke Wellington]

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I totally agree with you that we have a mental health crisis. Sadly, I think part of the reason our young people are so at risk of mental health issues is a prolonged exposure of overprotectiveness. By not exposing children to acceptable risks at young ages they aren't developing the coping skills needed to deal with bigger risks when they get older. In that sense, the fact that students began self regulating safe spaces for themselves in the past couple of years is entirely expected. Maybe it will help with the mental health right now, but it's reinforcing the tag that it's ok to be overprotective and those university students are going to deal with a lot tougher things once they graduate than a person on the other side of campus who has a difference of opinion to them. 

In any case, I'd love to continue this in more detail but it's Friday night, I'm nearing bed and the weekends are virtually always away from the internet so feel free to respond (I will read it), but I can't debate it further. Enjoy your weekend  

~ PA

 

I agree with you, and over the last 2 decades it has gotten really bad.

We have been encouraging emotional sensitivity in younger generations instead of teaching people emotional resilience. As a result whenever they experience a negative emotion they cannot regulate them away and become tyrannical instead.

[+Sherapy]

47 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I agree with you, and over the last 2 decades it has gotten really bad.

We have been encouraging emotional sensitivity in younger generations instead of teaching people emotional resilience. As a result whenever they experience a negative emotion they cannot regulate them away and become tyrannical instead.

RM, we encourage emotional resilience by understanding our emotional nature, emotions are a natural part of being human this includes being vulnerable and seeking compassion and empathy, sometimes just listening to one another, the sense that one feels supported and safe to work through things is resilience and is fostered  by 
facilitating supportive adult-child relationships;

meaning having an adult in your childhood that you can talk to go to in non judgment.

building a sense of self-efficacy and perceived control
providing opportunities to strengthen adaptive skills and self-regulatory capacities,

such as safe places on a college campus, or support groups or on campus counseling.

mobilizing sources of faith, hope, and cultural traditions.
knowing oneself, knowing what you know and don’t know and getting help if you need it.

I was removed from my home by CPS due to severe abuse and neglect and there was serious trauma and emotions and stress that as a 8 year old I was not equipped to understand, or cope with, fortunately for me my grandmother was in conjunction with CPS and created an environment a safe place for me not by demeaning me for emotional sensitivity and browbeating me to buck up and get over it but by validating me and telling me it was an appropriate reaction and putting me in therapy to teach me the tools to move past the harm.  I am resilient as a result of the empathy and compassion that was extended to me while I learned the skills to cope. I don’t think it is ever to late and I see safe spaces on college campuses in the same light for those that need it and am glad our campuses provide this.

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/

Just another way to look at things. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

47 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

“WHAT IS A SAFE SPACE? On college campuses, a “safe space” is usually one of two things. Classrooms can be designated as academic safe spaces, meaning that students are encouraged to take risks and engage in intellectual discussions about topics that may feel uncomfortable. In this type of safe space, free speech is the goal.
The term “safe space” is also used to describe groups on college campuses that seek to provide respect and emotional security, often for individuals from historically marginalized groups.”
 

“So when students ask for a safe space, we’re not trying to limit the flow of ideas on campus or to disengage from the community. Impeding free speech and censoring opinions that may not align with our own isn’t the objective.

Instead, we’re seeking a tool to help us take care of our mental health so we can continue actively engaging in our classes, extracurriculars, and other areas of our lives.

Safe spaces don’t coddle us or blind us from the realities of our world. They offer us a brief opportunity to be vulnerable and let down our guard without fear of judgment or harm. 

They allow us to build resilience so that when we’re outside of these spaces we can engage maturely with our peers and be the strongest, most authentic versions of ourselves.”

A place allocated to one who is in need of support and gentleness on a topic for whatever reasons while the rest of the campus is free speech as usual. 

https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/safe-spaces-college#6

 

So, safe space equals support group? There are other definitions.

"There exists a tension between emotional safety and academic safety. If the goal of an academic setting is to keep people comfortable, then the acceptability of speech will be determined by how objectionable it is. And if arguments are limited based on how offensive they seem, people are expected to adhere to an implicit set of polite ideological norms. Speech is allowed so long it doesn’t appear to conflict with the socially accepted opinions on certain touchy topics. In this way, new safe spaces become less about respecting and empowering individuals than sanctifying certain ideas. Provocative speech is censored, which has pernicious effects on the academic tradition."

http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/what-is-a-safe-space/

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

So, safe space equals support group? There are other definitions.

"There exists a tension between emotional safety and academic safety. If the goal of an academic setting is to keep people comfortable, then the acceptability of speech will be determined by how objectionable it is. And if arguments are limited based on how offensive they seem, people are expected to adhere to an implicit set of polite ideological norms. Speech is allowed so long it doesn’t appear to conflict with the socially accepted opinions on certain touchy topics. In this way, new safe spaces become less about respecting and empowering individuals than sanctifying certain ideas. Provocative speech is censored, which has pernicious effects on the academic tradition."

http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/what-is-a-safe-space/

John, you are free to see a safe space as an infringement on free speech, I don’t, I see it as a positive move.
 

We will just  have to agree to disagree, I am fine with this. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

John, you are free to see a safe space as an infringement on free speech, my understanding is it isn’t intended as this. 
 

We will just  have to agree to disagree, I am fine with this. 

I am in complete agreement with safe space equaling support group and their necessity for support and affirmation for troubled individuals. My concern is with creating an expansive academic safe space as a method of exclusion of ideas, concepts and beliefs and the expression of opinion and alternative ideas to an enforced acceptable norm.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[Duke Wellington]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

RM, we encourage emotional resilience by understanding our emotional nature, emotions are a natural part of being human this includes being vulnerable and seeking compassion and empathy, sometimes just listening to one another, the sense that one feels supported and safe to work through things is resilience and is fostered  by 
facilitating supportive adult-child relationships;

meaning having an adult in your childhood that you can talk to go to in non judgment.

building a sense of self-efficacy and perceived control
providing opportunities to strengthen adaptive skills and self-regulatory capacities,

such as safe places on a college campus, or support groups or on campus counseling.

mobilizing sources of faith, hope, and cultural traditions.
knowing oneself, knowing what you know and don’t know and getting help if you need it.

I was removed from my home by CPS due to severe abuse and neglect and there was serious trauma and emotions and stress that as a 8 year old I was not equipped to understand, or cope with, fortunately for me my grandmother was in conjunction with CPS and created an environment a safe place for me not by demeaning me for emotional sensitivity and browbeating me to buck up and get over it but by validating me and telling me it was an appropriate reaction and putting me in therapy to teach me the tools to move past the harm.  I am resilient as a result of the empathy and compassion that was extended to me while I learned the skills to cope. I see safe spaces on college campuses in the same light for those that need it and am glad our campuses provide this.

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/

Just another way to look at things. 

Emotional resilience does indeed arise by understanding how our emotions work, and how to manage them.

The average person doesnt experience growing up in a traumatic environment, they arent expected to know how to regulate their emotions during severe abuse. Although you know doubt have been through a process where you have had to learn how to do that. My comments are not a personal attack on you, no 8 year child knows how to deal with their distress when they are being abused by their parents.

We are talking about the average citizen who lacks the emotional maturity to regulate emotions they would reasonably be expected to manage as an adult. Jealousy, envy, temper tantrums, emotional volatility when someone disagrees with them or they dont get their way, etc. Needing everyone to like them and validate their identity, their views, their egos, etc.

In my opinion two things have caused it:

Legal Action: Everyone suing everyone for everything means people creep around others on eggshells scared of doing or saying anything that would upset them in case they get sued. The result is we have bred a generation of youngsters who have only ever experienced getting their way. They have a huge sense of entitlement and are tyrannical little monsters.

Sensitivity: Manliness has become a bad word in our society thanks to the rise of feminism and identity politics. To be a strong, dominant, emotionally resilient man, is looked down upon and no longer taught to a lot of our boys. They receive a feeling orientated upbringing instead like they were girls. The result is a generation of men who are led by their emotions rather than fact, reason, and what is right or wrong.

Combine the two and you basically have a hyper-sensitive emotionally volatile tyrant. I call them snowflakes and it is almost an entirely liberal-socialist phenomenon. Its their `progressive` politics which has done it.

[+Hammerclaw]

One can only achieve clarification, illumination and amelioration of understanding in debate, by not only asking questions, but questioning answers, as well.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Emotional resilience does indeed arise by understanding how our emotions work, and how to manage them.

The average person doesnt experience growing up in a traumatic environment, they arent expected to know how to regulate their emotions during severe abuse. Although you know doubt have been through a process where you have had to learn how to do that. My comments are not a personal attack on you, no 8 year child knows how to deal with their distress when they are being abused by their parents.

We are talking about the average citizen who lacks the emotional maturity to regulate emotions they would reasonably be expected to manage as an adult. Jealousy, envy, temper tantrums, emotional volatility when someone disagrees with them or they dont get their way, etc. Needing everyone to like them and validate their identity, their views, their egos, etc.

In my opinion two things have caused it:

Legal Action: Everyone suing everyone for everything means people creep around others on eggshells scared of doing or saying anything that would upset them in case they get sued. The result is we have bred a generation of youngsters who have only ever experienced getting their way. They have a huge sense of entitlement and are tyrannical little monsters.

Sensitivity: Manliness has become a bad word in our society thanks to the rise of feminism and identity politics. To be a strong, dominant, emotionally resilient man, is looked down upon and no longer taught to a lot of our boys. They receive a feeling orientated upbringing instead like they were girls. The result is a generation of men who are led by their emotions rather than fact, reason, and what is right or wrong.

Combine the two and you basically have a hyper-sensitive emotionally volatile tyrant. I call them snowflakes and it is almost an entirely liberal-socialist phenomenon. Its their `progressive` politics which has done it.

18 and college age doesn’t automatically mean all kids are adults, it depends on a lot of things, most are coming out of very limited fields of experience and not all have the coping skills they need, yet.

Some young adults are marginalized, geez, I have seen it first hand. I am glad something exists to help.

I raised 3 boys, I did include embracing their emotional nature, seeing the big picture that one day they would be partners and fathers. In spite of that they are still very much led by reason, they are naturally biologically fix it oriented and I for one appreciate this in males. I also appreciate a man who can understand his emotions and has them and can extend compassion and empathy. I don’t personally think denying your emotions is more manly, but each to their own. 
 

As always you have a unique way of seeing things. Thanks for your input. 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

I dare say a few here want this forum to be a "safe space", which seems to me to be a euphemism for a place where you won't be contradicted.

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I dare say a few here want this forum to be a "safe space", which seems to me to be a euphemism for a place where you won't be contradicted.

Ha ha ha ha ha not in this section though.