[–] [deleted] 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
-4

1
6

[–] safespacer 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Absolute free speech usually implies the legalization of (criminal) threats and intimidation, what is your take on that?

1
1

[–] elgindelta 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

what ever happened to a good old fashioned a$$ beating for running the mouth. that usually has a fantastic way of negating said threats and attempted intimidation

3
-2

[–] happychildless 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

My first thought was treason and conspiracy towards murder.

My guess is that OP is angsty teenager.

0
0

[–] Dixie_Flatline 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

... You people are violent, I thought libel/slander/NDAs.

4
4

[–] Arotaes_Forgehammer 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

Yep, once again a perfectly benign concept has been twisted to someone else's advantage.

0
3

[–] 123_456 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This is exactly how I feel, and you are 100% right. Because I'm 100% right. Fuck you, safe spacers!

1
3

[–] IdSay 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

"comfort zone"<"Real Safe Space"

7
-6

0
2

[–] ObscureReference 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Safe from what? Safe from ideas that offend you or safe from censorship?

If I had to support the concept of a 'safe space' in public, I would sell it as making people feel comfortable from ideas that would trigger them and make them feel uncomfortable. Those are the benefits of safe spaces, at least for those who agree with them. At least if more people who advocated these 'safe space' positions would step up and explain what safe spaces are and why they are supported, then we can get to a point where we can ask questions, like "Are safe spaces compatible with western democracy?"

The problem is the average SJW advocating safe spaces, or comparable ideas censoring the media, will not take part in a fair debate. They would rather lock down comments, shout people out, refuse to debate, read from a script using university level feminist terms, or just find a way for the debate not to happen because they can't have 'safe word' to stop a question they don't want to address.

0
0

[–] Javik2186 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

SJAs is the new term for SJWs

SJAs: (Social Justice Abusers)

0
0

[–] ObscureReference 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I see problems. Who decides who is a SJW vs a SJA. Take a look at an older [not naming specifics names for simplicity of a three lettered group with recently stopped operations] model used in a sophisticated guerilla war as it would play out in a western country. You have soldiers, PR specialists, politicians, and what I would assume are 'cleaner' contacts to people who do the dirty work. Where does the line stop and between good and bad. What are journalist presenting the SJA's case? What are uninformed people sympathetic to the left? This is really confusing and could actually legitimize dirty people.

This sounds like a huge mess to me, maybe I am missing nuances.

0
2

[–] Moosh_Banger 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It is typical of cultural Marxists to turn words upside down and twist their meanings inside out.

To any sane person who has paid attention to the rise of the progressive cultists, safe spaces mean one thing and one thing only: they are a place where contrary opinions are targeted and persecuted. Safe spaces represent a ball and chain to all free thinking individuals who value intellectual autonomy and an open marketplace of ideas above the values of conformity. To freedom loving individuals safe spaces are anything but safe.

0
0

[–] Javik2186 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Exactly.

3
2

[–] Spear1000 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

And freedom to carry a weapon

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)