Suppose a group has declared a "safe space" on public property or a place of public accommodation

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Then, a person who is not a member of the group enters the area.

How the person who is not a member of the group be dealt with if they decline to leave voluntarily?

[Orrex]

1. Does the declaring group have any authority to do so?

E.g., have they obtained some form of permit or secured the property through temporary rental, such as a picnic pavilion in a public park?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Those are generally limited to a specified time.

[Orrex]

3. Does your hypothetical group intend to declare a permanent "safe space?"

Does the group have any authority to do so?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Permanent or not private parties have no authority in public venues.

[Orrex]

22. So you're now stipulating that it's a private group?

That wasn't indicated in the original question.

Also, assuming that no unlawful activity is taking place, if a private group has obtained legal authorization to control the space for a given time, then why shouldn't they be permitted to control the space during that time?

If I legally reserve a pavilion in a public park for a wedding reception, why should I be required to allow some other group to use the pavilion at the same time?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Who does the government declare safe spaces from?

Do you imagine groups of bureaucrats seeking refuge from the public?



What a weird point of contention.

[Orrex]

43. Hey, it was your weird question to begin with

Who does the government declare safe spaces from?

You didn't answer my question, and your answer is required before I can respond to the question posed in your OP.

Do you imagine groups of bureaucrats seeking refuge from the public?

You didn't answer my question, and your answer is required before I can respond to the question posed in your OP.

What a weird point of contention.

It's not a weird point of contention at all--it's an attempt to clarify your (debilerately?) ill-defined question.

You also have a habit of changing your question when you don't like the answers that you receive, while simultaneously pretending that you didn't actually change it.

Once you clarify--namely, once you specify why a group legally authorized to control a space shouldn't be permitted to control that space--then I'll answer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. You guys are obviously too humiliated to openly admit what you want.

You want safe spaces but you're too scared to say how you want it enforced. You claim it can't be defined but when invited to define it yourselves you cry about others defining it for you. When others offer a definition you complain the definition is not fair -- while still refusing to offer your own definition.

So then comes the silliness about "Well, we're only doing it because the government/institution let's us. It's just like camping in your kitchen!"

If you're so embarrassed by what you believe that you have to hide behind word games then what you believe isn't fit for human consumption.

[jberryhill]

113. They are enforced by police, usually

Here are police enforcing the boundary of a safe space on public property, as defined by the permit:

[cheapdate]

127. It's really simple.

If a person or group reserves a space, such as a pavilion or meeting room, they can ask anyone to leave and if they don't leave they can have the police remove them.

They don't even have to give a reason, just the fact that they asked them to leave and they didn't is enough. It works for birthday parties, reunions, and Donald Trump rallies.

A reserved space is private. The end.

[jberryhill]

34. If I rent a public park pavilion for a birthday party

Then I certainly have the authority to only allow those invited to the party.

There are many public venues which one may rent.

I can rent a room in a lodge at a National Park. If I do, you are not welcome to come in, and you will be removed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. Birthday parties exist. Apparently safe spaces do not.

[jberryhill]

47. Pretty sure that Chester the Molester is not invited to the party

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Can Wheeler the Drug Dealer be lawfully invited to the birthday party?

[jberryhill]

62. It's entirely up to me

Does he have anything good?

Has "Wheeler the Dealer" impregnated a white girl in Maine, by any chance?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. I would be interested in seeing a defense made in a court of law

based on a rental agreement/permit with a government/public entity allowing for unlawful activity.

[jberryhill]

66. As distinguished from some other court?

I've defended things in a court of basketball, a court of food, and a court of tennis, but I never understand why people use the expression a "court of law" other than perhaps watching a lot of Dragnet episodes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. In other words a permit or rental agreement with a government agency or public institution

is not a license to engage in unlawful activity.

[jberryhill]

76. It is a license to exclude others from the event

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. As long as that exclusion is lawful.

[jberryhill]

104. That's where you are wrong

If, say, a church gets an event permit for a public facility, they can exclude members of other religions.

If I get a permit for my birthday party, and only family members are allowed, then that excludes people of any other hereditary background.

I mean, good golly, we don't need to go any further than the regular, lawful use of exclusive permits by the KKK in parks, government grounds, streets, etc..

This happens all of the time.



You have not asserted a single statute, or a single case, supporting your proposition. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the issuance of exclusive permits - including as you can plainly see to the KKK - to groups who then are entitled to exercise an exclusive right within the scope of the permit, is somehow illegal.

Plainly, it is not. Again, see photograph above.

The police are there to protect their exclusive right to use that space consistent with their permit. No one who they do not want there is allowed to enter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. The Civil Rights Act

It seems these might apply --

Title II[edit]

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[42]

Title III[edit]

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Title IV[edit]

Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title VI[edit]

Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_IX

[jberryhill]

108. Rofl

None of that prohibits the government from issuing exclusive permits, specific as to place and time to those private clubs mentioned in the first line of what is not a citation to a particular statute or case. In fact, it is this act which REQUIRES the government to do that.

Again, the KKK does this ALL OF THE TIME.

Why has no one come up with your brilliant theory?

[Cerridwen]

4. Define "safe space." I've yet to see anyone with any knowledge,...

Define "safe space." I've yet to see anyone with any knowledge, understanding, or actual experience define what a safe space is. I've just seen reporting that assumes everyone is operating from the same definition and experience.

What is a safe space in reality? Rather than the cartoon version put out by the well-informed and completely fact-based media. /that last bit was sarcastic

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. What is the definition?

Does it require registration? Can it be impromptu? Does anything have to be published or do those establishing the safe space get to tell the excluded persons they are excluded without prior notice?

[Cerridwen]

7. First of all, I asked for a definition. I notice you didn't answer.

First of all, I asked for a definition. I notice you didn't answer. You did however manage to use a "just asking questions" reply. No answers; just questions.

I also noted, sarcastically, that the only thing I've seen written about safe spaces is by a media who has a long history of not bothering to research what they report.

So, again, please define "safe space." I'm not sure how you can pose a hypothetical (which is ya know, hypothetical) without even giving a definition of your hypothetical event.


edit for egregious word placement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. No, my reply is deliberate. If those wanting the privilege of safe spaces cannot define them.

then they have no basis to claim their safe space has been violated.

"This is our safe space!"

"No, it's not."

"Yes, it is!"

"Prove it."

[Cerridwen]

12. Ah. So you don't actually know what a safe space is, just what you've heard...

Ah. So you don't actually know what a safe space is, just what you've heard and/or read somewhere?

You don't know what it is much less how it/they could/would be implemented, what the purpose is, nor how it's beneficial/detrimental.

In other words, your hypothetical is based on lack of any knowledge of the topic about which you make a hypothetical.

Okay.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I bet you can't define what constitutes a safe space because doing so

would expose the concept to its inherent fragility. It's est to keep definitions loose and ever-changing in order to preserve the power to discriminate.

[kwassa]

19. This is your thesis and your agenda.

Yours to prove.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Safe spaces don't exist.

[kwassa]

23. Prove it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. They do not possess any quantifiable or qualifiable characteristics.

[kwassa]

32. Prove it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. You're engaged in a logical fallacy: Demanding proof of a negative.

You could easily try to prove me wrong by demonstrating that safe spaces do possess quantifiable and qualifiable properties but you already started painting and the corner is coming up fast.

[kwassa]

53. You just made an assertion, it is yours to defend.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. Actually, I'm agreeing with Cerridwen that no definition exists.

[LanternWaste]

87. Neither does art.

Neither does art.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. I'm pretty sure a 8" x 10" painting is 8" wide and 10" in height

And depending upon the particular piece a whole host of additional properties and their characteristics could be defined.

[Orrex]

31. Great--I'll have the cigar-smoker's club convene in your kitchen tonight

They've frequently complained about so-called "safe spaces," so they'll be gratified to hear that they don't exist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. My kitchen is private property.

[jberryhill]

37. Are you saying that I can hang out at your campsite at Yellowstone National Park?

I can just wander into your campsite and stay there? Even though you paid the fee for that campsite?

Are you saying that in the "group camping areas" of National Parks, which comprise collections of campsites rented on a group basis, that if some youth outdoor organization has rented a group area, then you can just go hang out with them?

There is a LOT of public property which can be rented or otherwise reserved for the exclusive use of groups or individuals on a defined permit basis.

When that occurs, the group which obtained the rental or permit can certainly exclude others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. The only person discussing camp ground rentals is you.

[jberryhill]

44. YOU are asking about whether a group can exclude others on public property

I declare my campsite, in a National Park, to be a "safe space" for me and my family.

You are not allowed in my campsite.

How is that not responsive to what you have asked?

[Orrex]

45. Ah--so you accept that "safe spaces" do exist.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. No, I recognize private property exists.

The locks on the door are for an intruder's protection.

[Orrex]

55. So you accept that "safe spaces" do exist.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong.

I can employ deadly force against anyone who enters my kitchen without my permission. Yet, here you are claiming I have the same legal rights in public areas or places of public accommodation.

[Orrex]

59. Your desperation is charming

Here is your standard strategy, plainly on display here:

1. Pose a vague question that you can alter or redefine as often as needed, in order to confound answers to the question as you originally posed it.
2. Change the parameters of the discussion as often as needed, in order to confound answers to the question as you originally posed it.
3. Misstate your opponents' positions so that you can attack them more readily (you've done that to me at least three times in this thread alone).

I can employ deadly force against anyone who enters my kitchen without my permission

By that threat of deadly force, you establish a safe space. And that's funny, because in Reply #20 you seemed to indicate that safe spaces don't exist when you flatly declared that "safe spaces don't exist."

You didn't stipulate that safe spaces don't exist on public property (which would be a false statement in any case), nor did you specify that private property can't qualify as a safe space. You simply declared that "safe spaces don't exist," so I (perhaps foolishly) responded to what you wrote. Next time I'll know better.

Incidentally, it's adorable that you imagine your locks to be there "for the intruder's safety."

Yet, here you are claiming I have the same legal rights in public areas or places of public accommodation.

I made no such claim, so I have no reason to defend that position.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. In the OP is specificed public propert and places of public accommodation.

It was you effort to try and conflate private property with public areas. I made the distinction they were different, you persisted in your error so I provided an example of the difference in legal rights between the two.

I made no such claim, so I have no reason to defend that position.

If you claim my kitchen is a safe space and you endorse the policy of safe spaces in public areas or places of public accommodation -- as stipulated in the OP -- then, yes, you did.

You may not have wanted to trip over yourself but you still did.

[Orrex]

67. Well, no

The OP was about groups and safe spaces on public property, but you retroactively decided that your question excluded groups able to declare safe spaces on public property.

Having changed the parameters of the OP's question, you then unilaterally declared that safe spaces do not exist. That's false in any case, but it also lacks specificity, since you absolutely didn't specify that you were excluding private property from that absolute restriction.

So no, I'm not conflating private and public property at all--that's another of your attempts to misstate my position (after another of your attempts to redefine your question). You may indeed have distinguished between private and public spaces, but you did so only after your absolute declaration that safe spaces don't exist.

If you meant "safe spaces cannot exist on public property," then perhaps you should have done a better job in writing your post.

If you claim my kitchen is a safe space and you endorse the policy of safe spaces in public areas or places of public accommodation -- as stipulated in the OP -- then, yes, you did.

Nope. You declared that your kitchen is a safe space when you made your adorable threat against imaginary intruders. I didn't claim that your kitchen is a place of public accommodation; I responded to your absolute assertion that safe spaces don't exist by pointing out the fact that you declare your kitchen to be a safe space. Again, if you'd written your post better and stipulated that your absolute declaration was only absolute in a narrowly defined context, then I wouldn't have invited the cigar club into your kitchen.


So that's on you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. "you then unilaterally declared that safe spaces do not exist"

No, I adopted Cerridwen's tact.

If someone will not/cannot define what constitutes a thing they cannot declare the thing to exist. It exists in their mind and their mind only and others are not obligated to humor their solipsism.

If you meant "safe spaces cannot exist on public property," then perhaps you should have done a better job in writing your post.

My post was for those who favor the policy of private groups being allowed to declare safe spaces in public areas. If they favor them they should be prepared state what is the extent of their right to enforce the boundaries of their safe space. I know what the rights are to enforce the boundaries of my kitchen. That's not a threat; that's a legal, enforceable right.

If a similar right were extended to people declaring a place as a safe space then perhaps a safe space would exist but I don't see anyone stepping up to claim such a right exists -- let alone actually defining what the extent of that right would entail.

[Orrex]

72. Your OP did not stipulate "private groups," so you're changing your question

As usual.

Your OP asked about "groups" and you have ignored multiple examples of "groups" declaring "safe spaces" in public places.

If a similar right were extended to people declaring a place as a safe space then perhaps a safe space would exist but I don't see anyone stepping up to claim such a right exists

No one has made that claim, so you are obviously mounting an argument against a position held by no one.

Since you still haven't defined what your OP meant by "groups," then you can't very well require your respondents to declare how such "groups" might enforce their "safe spaces" (a term that you also have not defined).

By deliberately failing to define "groups" or "safe spaces," you once again tried to give yourself the ability to tweak your question retroactively in order to pretend that no one can answer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. I suppose if someone wanted to pick nits they could make a claim "private groups" had to be

stipulated but I'm not aware of public groups declaring safe spaces. If you have an example, please feel free to offer it.

No one has made that claim, so you are obviously mounting an argument against a position held by no one.

There is the Melissa Glick episode at Mizzou where she felt entitled to call for muscle.

[Orrex]

84. That's not picking nits--it's essential to the discussion

I suppose if someone wanted to pick nits they could make a claim "private groups" had to be stipulated but I'm not aware of public groups declaring safe spaces.

Are you kidding? Public groups routinely declare safe spaces, both temporary and permanent. I already cited the example of convicted predatory child rapists being barred from a public playground. Public libraries commonly forbid people from cooking meals among the stacks. You can't set off legally obtained fireworks indoors on public property nor serve alcohol in a public elementary school. And if you attempted to shoot a pornographic movie on public grounds where the president is giving a speech, then you can bet you'll be excluded from that safe space in a hurry.

You are attempting to disqualify these public safe spaces solely because they blow your OP out of the water.

There is the Melissa Glick episode at Mizzou where she felt entitled to call for muscle.

Take that up with Ms. Glick; no one in this discussion has endorsed her choice of action. If Ms. Glick's action is indicative of a general trend, then please cite other examples so that we can discuss them; if her action is an isolated (i.e. non-representative) occurrence, then it's intellectually dishonest to hold it up as emblematic of the topic as a whole.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Perhaps we have different definitions of public and private.

I understand public to refer to the government or institutions supported by taxpayer funding.

Public libraries commonly forbid people from cooking meals among the stacks. You can't set off legally obtained fireworks indoors on public property nor serve alcohol in a public elementary school. And if you attempted to shoot a pornographic movie on public grounds where the president is giving a speech, then you can bet you'll be excluded from that safe space in a hurry.

Those are prohibited activities that apply to everyone equally. There's a tremendous difference between "You can't cook in the library" and "You can't cook in the library if your a Pacific Islander."

Take that up with Ms. Glick; no one in this discussion has endorsed her choice of action.

Then what is the preferred choice of action?

[Orrex]

95. Well, let's review:

I understand public to refer to the government or institutions supported by taxpayer funding.

1. Public libraries. Check. Definitely supported by taxpayer funding.
2. Indoor public property. Check. Though I admit that I could have been more clear as to the nature of the site.
3. Public elementary school. Check. Definitely supported by taxpayer funding.
4. Porno on public grounds. Check; if the Pres is giving a speech, the event is definitely supported by taxpayer funding.

So it would seem that all of my examples qualify as "public spaces" by your definition. What's the problem?

Those are prohibited activities that apply to everyone equally. There's a tremendous difference between "You can't cook in the library" and "You can't cook in the library if your a Pacific Islander."

Again, that's a post hoc stipulation not established in your OP.

Then what is the preferred choice of action?

I don't intend to speak for Ms. Glick. However, if a group enters a contract to use a public venue for a specified period of time, then it may be that the contract provides for the exclusion of certain parties; that would depend on each instance, of course.

If no explicit contract is established, then the group holding the public space would be constrained by extant law as it pertains to removing those who violate the group's temporary possession of the space, of course.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. "the contract provides for the exclusion of certain parties"

Be that as it may the party entering into the agreement is not given license to engage in unlawful activity.

Excluding people on the basis of a protected category would be unlawful.

[Orrex]

99. "the party entering into the agreement is not given license to engage in unlawful activity."

Yes, I would agree with that, since that would render the contract invalid.

Excluding people on the basis of a protected category would be unlawful.

Before I answer, can you define "protected category" in this context?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. Race, religion, etc. as defined in civil rights law.

[jberryhill]

106. yet you cite no statute and you cite no case

You keep going on about "law".

Do you care to actually identify one?

[Orrex]

112. If I obtain a permit to host an Atheists' Club meeting in a pavilion at a public park...

Am I legally required to allow evangelizing Christians to preach the word in that pavilion during the time that I've secured it for my use?

Or can I exclude that religious group from the pavilion while I hold it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. How about atheist only living accommodations on university property?

[Orrex]

117. How about answering my question?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

118. If I answer yours will you answer mine?

[Orrex]

119. So you're not actually interested in discussion?

Well, I'm not the only one who suspected as much.

You asked about excluding a "protected category," and I suggested an example where such exclusion would be reasonable and permitted.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. "I suggested an example where such exclusion would be reasonable and permitted."

Admitted, but that isn't the end of the matter.

Atheist-only housing on university owned property would be another issue entirely.

I'm curious if your support for such groups extends to groups such as the Boy Scouts former prohibition on gay members.

[Orrex]

122. Is the proposed university a public institution or private?

I should start with a general disclaimer that current law is the current threshold, with the stipulation that laws are always subject to review and amendment.

Beyond that, a publicly funded facility shouldn't be permitted to establish exclusive housing based on religion or lack of religion.

A private university that receives no public funding has greater freedom to divide housing, but only within the constraints of laws prohibiting discrimination.

I'm curious if your support for such groups extends to groups such as the Boy Scouts former prohibition on gay members.

Personally I find discrimination of that kind abhorrent, but to the extent that complies with existing law, I don't know that there was much formal leverage to get such an organization to end those practices.

What is your view?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

123. I actually have no disagreement with anything you wrote.

I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse.

[Orrex]

125. Well, I admit that that was unexpected.

Maybe we should quit while we're ahead and leave it at that.

I won't be online much for the next two days anyway...

[jberryhill]

105. That's simply wrong

No.

The private group has been given exclusive rights to use that space for the designated time. It is, in effect, JUST like your own kitchen as noted above.

The point of the permit is, indeed, to make it lawful for them to use the space for their purpose, and to exclude whomever they may designate.



NO ONE is getting into that permitted assembly in a public space without the consent of the permit holder. In fact, the police are there to enforce the right conveyed by the permit.

The police are indeed there to ensure the SAFETY of the permit holders in the exercise of the rights conveyed by the permit.

Again, if I rent a room at the Yosemite lodge, I can declare that no (fill in the blank) are allowed in my room during the time I have rented it.

[Rex]

140. Since you win the thread, expect your posts to be roundly ignored by the OP.

Then again, others have proven that the OP has no idea what a 'safe space' really is or how it is defined.

[Cerridwen]

29. Three (?) replies to me and no definition forthcoming.

Three (?) replies to me and no definition forthcoming.

"It's est to keep definitions loose and ever-changing in order to preserve the power to discriminate."

Or keep definitions undefined in order to make of it whatever one cares to make of it and anyone who attempts to find out what "it" is, is left with no way to respond to an invisible, unknown thing.

[Orrex]

56. That's the poster's M.O.

Funny how that works.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. Safe Space (n)

An borderless area of solipsistic retreat based on bad manners

[wryter2000]

50. Power to discriminate

Ya. Got ya now.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Got what?

[kwassa]

18. but he is somehow offended by what he doesn't know about ....

That is fascinating.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Who's "he"?

[kwassa]

24. You.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Well, it wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

[MicaelS]

110. "He" is a female.

Thus the correct term is "she".

[kwassa]

114. She.

I stand slightly corrected.

[Cerridwen]

36. Actually, it looks as though he's bothered by something he says doesn't exist.

Actually, it looks as though he's bothered by something he says doesn't exist.

I cannot argue with nor discuss that kind of...logic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Who's "he"?

[kwassa]

54. That is indeed curious, isn't it?

[Marr]

142. This was a fascinating exchange.

You argued your point well, and I see nothing but logical fallacies, misdirection, and dogmatic insistence to conform offered in response.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. Thank you. I genuinely wish it were otherwise.

[MicaelS]

13. Since you appear to have the only "correct" answer..

Why don't you enlighten us?

[Cerridwen]

14. Uh, I didn't offer an answer nor say I had an answer, "correct," correct, or otherwise.

Uh, I didn't offer an answer nor say I had an answer, "correct," correct, or otherwise.

I asked for a definition from which to proceed. I received no answer to my request nor a definition.

Perhaps you have an informed definition. Perhaps you could share it here with me and the OP.

Thanks.

edited to add specifics

[MicaelS]

16. No I do not.

I would like to read a comprehensive definition so we can all be on the same page. But that definition would probably be a debate all by itself.

[Cerridwen]

30. "I would like to read a comprehensive definition..." So would I.

"I would like to read a comprehensive definition..." So would I.

Apparently, that won't be happening in this thread.

[loyalsister]

82. It is space where people agree and can be counted on to be respectful

Sometimes created in the interest of specific group of people. For example, in my city we have a center that is specifically designed to be a safe space for GLBT youth. It is a group of mentors and people who are sympathetic to their cause who have acquired physical space that enables people who desperately need it to feel comfortable being themselves.
A hateful homophobe is not welcome or entitled to impose their presence on individuals who are looking for the education and social comforts that are difficult to find in school and sometimes even in their own homes.

[ileus]

8. attitude adjustments around the head and neck area until they leave?

[snooper2]

9. Um, this is easy, you use the same bubbles that they have at Safe Space University

[MineralMan]

11. If a space is public, it is public.

It might be closed for an event, but it would still be a public place at all other times.

For example, I can rent a space in a Saint Paul public park for a party. There are spaces like that in many of our parks, with things like picnic tables and grills. During the time I rent it, it becomes a private space. Before and after that time, it is public space, available for anyone's use.

So, your hypothetical question is incomplete, and cannot be answered. Has what you suggested occurred? What are the details of an actual situation? If you provide details, we can discuss a specific case. It's impossible, however, to discuss your open-ended hypothetical question.

However, all public spaces are "safe" places, to the extent that individuals cannot be assaulted or forced to leave such places without some legal reason. If, for example, a group is having some sort of gathering in a public place and another individual disrupts that gathering, the law allowing that person to be removed, or even arrested, is generally called "Disturbing the Peace," and is a misdemeanor offense if someone does that.

[jberryhill]

39. Apparently Nuclear Unicorn wants to crawl into your tent at your campsite in Yosemite

[MineralMan]

42. Yosemite? I stay at the Ahwahnee.

Not really, but you won't find me in a tent any more. I quit tent camping at about age 35.

Nuclear Unicorn can have the old tent in my garage, though. I tried to sell it at a garage sale, but got no takers.

[REP]

15. Like this?

Only these are used to get people to enter, so more people can be called for assistance if needed/wanted.

[NCTraveler]

28. 1) What group is alowed to unanimously "declare a safe space"?

2) Your last question would be answered in the policy written by the institution, not "group".

"Groups" cannot do what you are saying so the whole op is insignificant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Those institutions granting permits have rules they have to operate under; civil rights law being a

significant aspect of those rules. Granting permits for purposes that run afoul of the law is generally frowned upon.

[NCTraveler]

116. Correct.

Post #46 destroys your whole op.

[AngryAmish]

41. If they don't leave they must be crushed.

[TipTok]

61. The safe space group should be mocked and everyone moves on with their life...

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. The hatred for people of color by a small group of mutual congratulators on this forum is remarkable

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. That sounds like circular reasoning.

"Safe spaces are needed to protect people from hatred and hatred is defined questioning the need for safe spaces."

[Orrex]

69. If a convicted predatory child rapist hangs out at a public playground, can he be removed?

Stipulating that the law bars him from such spaces, of course.

If he can be removed, then how is that not exactly the kind of public "safe space" that you declare not to exist?

If he cannot be removed, then on what basis can he not be removed?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. The predator had to be charged with a specific misdeed and then convicted.

Along the way there was a reading of the rights, discovery of evidence, opposing counsel, public trial, a jury, etc.

That's quite a far cry from a demand that an entire group be denied something based on nothing more than a happenstance of their birth.

[Orrex]

77. You are once again changing your question

Your OP made no stipulation that the hypothetical "group" would be exluded from the hypothetical "safe space" on the basis of "happenstance of birth." Here's the text of the OP, since it frankly appears that you either haven't read it or else weren't paying attention when you wrote it:

Suppose a group has declared a "safe space" on public property or a place of public accommodation

Then, a person who is not a member of the group enters the area.

How the person who is not a member of the group be dealt with if they decline to leave voluntarily?

Where in that text do you mention "happenstance of birth?"

Before you complain that I'm pivoting from "one person" to "a group," I would suggest that convicted predatory child rapists would--as a group--be barred from entry into the public safe space of a public children's playground. If you object to this clarification, let me know, because the example works just as well with only a single person being barred from the safe space.

The predator had to be charged with a specific misdeed and then convicted. Along the way there was a reading of the rights, discovery of evidence, opposing counsel, public trial, a jury, etc.

That's true but irrelevant, since your OP certainly didn't exclude such conditions from your question.

So I'll ask the question again, verbatim:

If a convicted predatory child rapist hangs out at a public playground, can he be removed? Stipulating that the law bars him from such spaces, of course.

If he can be removed, then how is that not exactly the kind of public "safe space" that you declare not to exist?

If he cannot be removed, then on what basis can he not be removed?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. You're raising questions and I am answering each one in turn.

Before you complain that I'm pivoting from "one person" to "a group," I would suggest that convicted predatory child rapists would--as a group--be barred from entry into the public safe space of a public children's playground.

I understood what you meant from the get-go but the group of person were each individually charged with specific misdeeds.

Does the fact pedos can be barred from a children's public playground then allow someone to declare that same public children's playground off limits to white people?

[Orrex]

85. No, you aren't

I understood what you meant from the get-go but the group of person were each individually charged with specific misdeeds.

Nevertheless, they are--as a group--permanently barred from a public safe space. Further, since members of that excluded group will likely be arrested for entering the public safe space, this example fully answers the question asked in your OP.

Does the fact pedos can be barred from a children's public playground then allow someone to declare that same public children's playground off limits to white people?

Did I claim that it does? Of course not.

Did you stipulate skin color or "happenstance of birth" in your OP? Of course not.

So why are you changing your question now?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. "Did I claim that it does? Of course not."

Those who demand the power to exclude white people are demanding the power to exclude white people. Maybe you should talk to them.

[Orrex]

92. Why? Are they participating in this discussion here?

I'm addressing your ill-worded OP, which failed to stipulate "private groups" or "happenstance of birth."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. So, you were totally unaware that's what the OP was referring to. Okay.

Well, now you know. Do you have anything to contribute or is the horse too far out of the barn for you?

[Orrex]

97. I addressed the OP as written.

If you meant to refer to something else, then you should have written a different OP.

Why don't you take this opportunity to ask the question that you intended to ask, rather than playing your usual whack-a-mole games of equivocation?

[Warren DeMontague]

124. That's not really an analagous situation to what is described in the OP.

Your example, it is the legal system which is defining the space, and the legal system clearly has the authority to do so.

OP's example is "a group has declared". Unless the group in question is acting with legal authority, it's not the same thing.

[Orrex]

126. The poster indicated that the question applies to private and public groups

See HERE, for example:

I suppose if someone wanted to pick nits they could make a claim "private groups" had to be stipulated but I'm not aware of public groups declaring safe spaces. If you have an example, please feel free to offer it.

The government is fundamentally a "public group," so my example of the playground and the predator is entirely fitting.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. I guess. But it's hardly the same as any other "public group".

I mean, the government can make those kinds of rules pertaining to public spaces, and other groups can't. So I suppose you can break that down or interpret it however you want.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. What is the point of this

Is this about the University of Chicago letter?

[virgogal]

79. If a person feels the need of a safe space they should stay home

and avoid the masses completely.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. "avoid the masses completely"

Some days the idea has merit.

[OneGrassRoot]

135. Home is the safe space... (edited)

for most people, unless they live with their abuser.

Most people encounter some level of shit every day...at school, at work and often in public spaces. Bullying is all around.

To want a breather from conflict isn't being weak; it's a survival mechanism.

To want to gather with those of like mind, even in public spaces, without even the possibility of being attacked isn't unreasonable.

People wanting safe spaces, for the most part, realize this is NOT the prevalent experience every day for people who work or go to school outside the home or socialize outside the home. To want a space where you can breathe in order to regroup and engage in daily life which IS the bulk of each day more effectively makes absolute sense to me.

To not support such sanctuaries makes NO sense to me.

[LanternWaste]

86. I'd imagine the same way we reacted to an individual arriving uninvited to a toddler's birthday part

I'd imagine the same way we reacted to an individual arriving uninvited to a toddler's birthday party in a neighborhood park, who then began eating the cake, popping balloons and making a mess of the barbecue... we simply called the cops who soon arrived and led the creep away.

It's not very often that a creep comes into a afternoon buffet restaurant and sits uninvited with a pre-existing crowd, but I can safely guess there are many people who would rationalize the table asking the creepy dude to leave as mere "special snowflakes" (the trendy pejorative of the month used by the cool kids and it looks good on a t-shirt) in place of somewhat more rational thought.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. "It's not very often that a creep comes into a afternoon buffet restaurant and sits uninvited"

I guess it's just a matter of what constitutes "a creep."

[loyalsister]

94. I think you intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent the concept

At MU, for example there were plenty of white allies who helped and participated in the protests. Allyship was not something white people could come in and claim, though. Allies are identified as people who are committed to opposing racism and supporting the goals of the people who protested on their own behalf. White people and other people of color were not banned. The protesters did seek safety in not allowing people who are not committed to their cause to impose themselves and their will on them.
They wanted to use public space to plan and grieve together without someone coming in and calling them bigots because, how dare they not want to have someone intrude on their discussion, dispute their grievances, then tell them that they are oppressing poor white people.
Just as it would not be unreasonable to prevent someone from attending the birthday party for an individual who they do not have a reputation of supporting when they have been in pain or talked about things that trouble them, it is not unreasonable to ask that someone who antagonizes people by doubting their painful life experiences not impose themselves on a group who wants to discuss and consider action regarding those doubted experiences.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. One example of inclusion does not exonerate every other example of exclusion.

It's the instances of exclusion that have to be addressed.

[loyalsister]

101. Do you have personal knowledge of such instances

It's a proven allies only context. Inclusion of unfriendly voices is what you seem to be demanding. I was recently at a family reunion where a hopefully soon to be ex husband showed up. Some people were glad to see him.
Those of us who know about the history of emotional abuse my cousin did not wear on her sleeve were not and would have preferred he be excluded from our family which had gathered in a public park.

When I mentioned it to an uncle, he said that IF it really happened, she brought it on herself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. "Inclusion of unfriendly voices is what you seem to be demanding."

No. What I'm demanding is that people not be barred from public venues and places of public accommodation based on their skin color or other such characteristic.

If a group rents/buys/leases a venue for their specific purpose and want to talk amongst themselves? God bless 'em. Go forth and do. I'm a firm believer in the right to free association -- and by extension, free disassociation.

However, even with a rental contract/permit, no government agency or publicly funded institution can enter into an agreement that would be in violation of civil rights law.

That is literally my one and only hang-up: Co-opting public spaces to exclude people based on race, religion, etc.

[loyalsister]

109. White people don't have a great track record of supporting people of color

To demand that your doubt and disputes of their experience be permitted to shout down the voices of oppressed people trying to gather in the spirit of supporting each other is absurd. Allies are welcome, doubters are not because the denial of oppression is the very basis of the white supremacy people of color have had to spend hundreds of years fighting.
Slaves weren't oppressed because they were lucky to be fed.
Blacks can't be experiencing oppression unless white people see it with their own eyes or in a data table.

White people who are committed to supporting and helping people of color are welcome. Why should someone without an honest commitment and respect for the cause and grievances identified by people of color be welcome? Why should it be assumed that people are committed when they are part of the oppressive group and have only doubted the experiences that have been identified by those who are oppressed?

[OneGrassRoot]

136. So does that mean... (edited)

that you disagree with the above posts which show a KKK assemblage on public property, being protected by police?

Co-opting public spaces to exclude people based on race, religion, etc.

This is actually becoming a more interesting conversation to me now because the question becomes how is it enforced? Not sure if a person of color or Jewish person or gay person has ever tried to crash a KKK rally or gathering. I can't imagine anyone in those groups would WANT to join the rally, beyond trying to make a point and see how they could legally be excluded.

But, still, if they did try to join in, does the KKK have the right to exclude them from entering that public space legally reserved for their parade/rally?

EDIT TO ADD: Do you feel the KKK SHOULD have the right to exclude people based on race, religion, etc. when using these public spaces? They have the right exclude people who don't agree with their tenets, which are all about excluding people based on race, religion, etc., from membership. That's a private thing, we know that. But what about gatherings in public spaces?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. A demonstration is a limited time event.

One of the back stories to this is UCLA granting housing that excludes groups based solely on race. Obviously a more permanent situation.

If the KKK were to set up an exclusion zone in that public venue that lasted the duration of the exclusive housing on UCLA reactions might not be as supportive of the KKK.

[OneGrassRoot]

138. Okay, so it is about the housing issue...

Like others, I was trying to stay focused on your short OP.

Thanks for the reply.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. I'm not sure of the context but...

...I'd suggest starting by writing a declaratory letter to the non-Grata entities in much the same style as Jefferson did.

[jberryhill]

111. This happens all of the time

See the cops?

They are there to enforce the right of the permit holder to exclude anyone they wish from their assembly, and to limit the assembly to the membership defined by the permit holder.

It is a safe space enforced by the police for the exercise of rights by the permit holder:







Here is a picture of an undesired attendee being excluded at the behest of the permit holder:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2297347.1437357530!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/481256822.jpg

[gollygee]

121. Safe spaces often don't work that way

It's often, for instance, a dorm designated for LGBT students, or students of color. And those people might have white or straight friends who enter the space, but it's usually a voluntary thing, like "please don't enter this space unless you are friendly toward our need for a safe space." And if people enter the space and start harassing people, then they would be asked to leave because they're harassing people. But if people are nice, there isn't usually any issue.

The trickier situation is probably when people are well-intended but accidentally hurtful - like nice, kind people who have ignorance about some issue or another. It can be stressful for LGBT people and people of color to have to educate people all the time, and again they need to have the opportunity at some times to focus on their schoolwork without having to deal with that kind of extra stress. That is an additional challenge other students don't have, and therefore it can cause them to have more stress and more trouble in school than other students. But I imagine students who want safe spaces would have to deal with situations like that on a case-by-case basis.

It's helpful for LGBT college students and students of color to not have to be on edge all day and all night among people who might be racist or homophobic. They can relax and concentrate on their studies. The stress of college is difficult for all students, and to have an additional layer of stress due to racism and/or homophobia makes college more difficult for those students and can cause them to have more trouble in school. I think it's completely reasonable for them to want a space to relax. Not the whole university, but just a study lounge or their dorm (where they sleep and study.)

I was at a place that designated an LGBT safe-space - a room for LGBT people to have for themselves after the Orlando shootings - where non-LGBT people were not welcome. It was presented as voluntary but we were strongly asked to not enter that space and IMO you'd have to be an asshole to go in when you've been asked to stay out. And again, if an asshole entered and acted like an asshole, it would be an issue of harassment. But I doubt they had a legal way to keep someone who was not LGBT out, unless they specifically started harassing people. Luckily, there were no horrible people present and their space was respected.

[Agnosticsherbet]

128. Those who want safe space are free to establish them on private property.

Public Space is for the benefit of everyone, and should never be limited to a few.

[Odin2005]

130. You have no fucking clue what a "safe space" is.

If a university organization that is for, say, LGBT folks has a space on campus for their organization should they not have a right to exclude non-members from their space?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

131. Campus organizations have by-laws, charters, scheduled meeting times and places, etc.

Organizations also do not co-opt entire buildings on a permanent basis.

So, any "safe space" that falls outside those characteristics is not legitimate?

[Odin2005]

132. You are grasping as strawmen.

"Organizations also do not co-opt entire buildings on a permanent basis."

This is regurgitated RW propaganda.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. Which RW source did I cite in my reference to UCLA student housing?

[OneGrassRoot]

141. Re: campus housing...

While I believe classrooms and other spaces on campus should be integrated in order to have a wide range of perspectives and voices and inclusivity, I feel differently about housing.

I view where we sleep and retreat to as a sanctuary; that it SHOULD be a sanctuary. I may not feel safe in my neighborhood because a neighbor wants me to die, and it is not a safe space because I can't take a walk in my neighborhood without the potential of an encounter, but if I stay inside my home, I feel pretty safe. Everyone should have a home where they feel safe; too many don't.

If I were an able-bodied student, I would have no problem with designated housing only for those with physical disabilities, for example. For one thing, it is voluntary and not all students who deal with physical limitations would want to live in such housing. Some students with disabilities would want to live with people of varying physical abilities. We all have different personalities and life experiences.

I would not feel slighted because I COULDN'T live there. It makes no sense to me why I would WANT to live there, since I respect the need for a sanctuary and since I don't share their life experience. And, it's precisely because able-bodied persons don't experience what they experience 24/7 that I can understand some may want a break from educating abled-bodied people.

Just because I don't live with someone facing this particular struggle doesn't mean I won't be around them. I know I will likely encounter them in class and other places on campus and off. I can still broaden my perspective and learn to empathize, and hopefully develop meaningful relationships. It doesn't require literally living together to develop true friendship.

And it doesn't mean that because I'm excluded from that housing I and other able-bodied persons are perceived as bullies or ableists. Only people who are very sensitive and take everything personally would think that way.

The same holds true for all marginalized or oppressed groups and the individuals who are members of those groups.

I respect that black people may want their own living space because they don't want to be explaining or defending cultural stuff or their collective history to white people 24/7. And that they'd like a break from the inevitable insults and demeaning comments made by well-meaning white people during the course of their day who don't realize what they say or do is dehumanizing people of color.

I wouldn't interpret being excluded from their housing as meaning that all white people are dangerous racists.

I respect that Latinos may want their own living space because they don't want to be explaining or defending their cultural stuff or to non-Latinos 24/7. And that they'd like a break from the inevitable insults and demeaning comments made by well-meaning non-Latinos during the course of their day who don't realize what they say or do is dehumanizing all Latinos.

I wouldn't interpret being excluded from their housing as meaning that all non-Latinos are nationalistic bigots.

I respect that those in the LGBTQ community may want their own living space because they don't want to deal with the inevitable awkwardness (or worse, the bullying) that comes with intimate living situations (sharing sleeping quarters, sharing showers, etc), and don't want to be educating heterosexual and cisgender persons 24/7.

I respect separate male housing, female housing and coed and otherwise fully integrated housing. When possible, choice is a wonderful thing when people have been sexually abused or bullied in other ways throughout their lives -- as individuals and as part of a group of humans -- and need a sanctuary to escape to some degree (because it would be rare to feel FULLY emotionally or physically safe).

Just because it can get complicated to address diverse needs and just because there may be gray areas doesn't mean that the underlying premise for something -- in this case safe spaces, specifically in the form of housing -- isn't valid and vitally important.


EDIT TO ADD: Note that I didn't include any obvious racist attacks in my examples of why I respect the need for safe spaces. There's no need for that to occur for people to need space to breathe and BE, away from the POTENTIAL of that (racism, bigotry) and because there's a need for a break from the daily, seemingly more benign interactions which are like knife cuts for people in marginalized groups.

[MicaelS]

133. Not if it is a public area.

Like a quad or something similar.

[Rex]

139. .