Campus Free Speech

Duke University Has a Safe Space Room. For 'Healing.'

We wouldn't want to expose students to contrary ideas.

|

Duke
Public Domain

It's called the Sanford Safe Space, and it will be a special room on campus where students can come when they need to "heal." A social worker will be present.

That's according to The Duke Chronicle, which notes that the room was conceived of by the Duke public policy school's Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. Kathryn Whetten, a global health professor and co-chair of the committee, offered her own office as the physical location of the safe space. The idea is to provide a safe, healing space where all sorts of people can feel good about themselves, including students of color, military members, and even conservatives.

"We want to have a place for people who feel marginalized and face constant attention for characteristics that are immutable—like their skin color or their religion, their immigration status or whether they're from another country—to be able to heal," Whetten told The Chronicle.

A note of mild criticism: some of the characteristics she describes are not immutable. Skin color is immutable—you can't change that—but religion isn't. People change their religious beliefs all the time. In fact, a lot of young people change their religious and political beliefs after they come to college and are exposed to different ways of thinking. One could even argue that many students ought to change their fundamental beliefs once they are exposed to better information—that this is the entire point of college.

It's not the point of a safe space, though.

Advertisement

NEXT: New Donor to Clinton Foundation Revealed: It's You.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A note of *mild* criticism” [emphasis added]

    So, a Soave post?

      1. Far from being mild, this “criticism” outrageously insinuates that people should be allowed to change their religions when confronted with “better information.” With views like this going around, no wonder we need safe spaces on our college campuses! The entire Duke community owes thanks to Professor Whetten for offering the protection of her office to endangered students.

        All that remains now is for Duke University, and indeed all institutions of higher learning nationwide, to promulgate specific regulations making it clear that offensive trigger-speech will, if necessary, be reported to the police, particularly if it damages the reputations of distinguished members of the academy. This includes, above all, inappropriately deadpan “Gmail confession parodies” of any department chairpersons or other academic officials. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        To encourage compliance with these regulations, any remaining copies of the Letters of Obscure Men should be promptly removed from university libraries where they may exist, and ceremonies should be held at which untenured faculty members are politely, but firmly asked to endorse the new policies and to register their principled, yet discreet, objection to the “First Amendment dissent” signed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in the above-signaled case.

        1. Fuck off you obnoxious spamming cunt.

  2. As much as I despise these little snowflakes, it is the parents that should be blamed.

    The parents of these kids should be beaten with a stick.

    1. A stick?

      are we talking a ‘switch’, or more like a shillelagh? And is “shillelagh with rusty nails” completely out of the question?

      1. They’ll give you whatever weapon you can spell and pronounce.

        1. “Plasma rifle in da 40-watt range.”

          1. Just what you see on shelf, pal.

          2. Hey, I can bake one a dem little ez-bake cupcake things wit’ dis/

      2. A caber?

      3. I think the rule of thumb still applies here…

    2. Violence should solve the problem as it usually does.

    3. The parents of these kids should be beaten with a stick.

      It’s really not my fault, I wanted to be much tougher on the boy, help him to grow up to be a man.

      It’s the wife. She always pampered him and never kept a punishment going more than a few minutes.

      1. You should get a better wife.

        My children (40 and 37) despise the 20-yr-old snowflakes they come into contact with.

  3. You know who else had a safe space where he retreated when his unpopular political beliefs made him feel marginalized?

    1. Bernie Sanders?

    2. Someone whose safe space was called Wolfsschanze?

    3. Dr. Strangelove and President Merkin Muffley?

      1. +1 Big Board

    4. Chili Davis?

      1. +6 weeks

    5. Superman?

    6. Nicolae Ceau?escu?

  4. A room like that sounds like a wonderful place to go when you need to pass tremendous amounts of gas.

    1. I’ve got my eye on you!

  5. Can we brick up the entrances when they retreat inside? That will keep the world safe from them.

    1. But it would keep more from entering.

      1. If we used shipping/storage containers, we could keep swapping out the room…

        1. Make sure the full ones get lost at sea.

      2. We’ll just put glue on the floor.

        SJW’s, they check in but they don’t check out.

    2. +1 Cask of Amintillado.

  6. So everyone is in the same room? That could be interesting. Sounds like an awesome place to go to start a vigorous conversation.

    1. As the officers and their companions retreat to an underground bomb shelter, a firefight ensues between the Dirty Dozen and the chateau’s guard force. As planned, Wladislaw and Reisman lock the Germans in the bomb shelter, then pry open the ventilation ducts to the shelter, drop unprimed grenades down, then pour gasoline inside. Jefferson throws a live grenade down each shaft

    2. That was my first thought. On any issue you could have people on either end of the spectrum go into this safe space, and when they see each other, they won’t feel safe at all. And that’s if they’re sincere — the trolling possibilities are limitless. I’m stocking up on popcorn.

      1. I’m a white, middle-aged, Christian, man. I would not be admitted.

        1. The mere presence of a white cis-het shitlord would render the space unsafe!

        2. Just say your bi-curious or trans-racial and you’ll do alright.

          1. No, Princess, I’m not a white man, I identify as a black female lesbian with a preference for white girls.

            1. Just finished the company annual online sexual harassment training module.

              One of the exercises was to determine if a coding supervisor repeatedly referring to one of the coders as ‘Princess’ was sexual harassment or not.

              1. I earned this tiara by blood and iron.
                Wear it proudly!

    3. I wonder if they have established an official Hierarchy of Aggrieved Groups to settle the inevitable conflict that will arise here.

      1. Yes.

        It’s called the “Progressive Stack” and the rules are somewhat fluid.

        1. I’ve heard it called the Grievance Pyramid

      2. What I like about articles like this is they directly refute the tons of people who pop up and scream that ‘there is no such thing as an SJW’.

        If there’s no such thing, then why are all these people fighting so hard to impose it?

  7. Skin color is immutable?you can’t change that

    Sammy Sosa disagrees.

    1. And Michael Jackson and John Boehner.

          1. He had acid thrown in his face, GIL! Sheesh, that was a tad tacky… It’s not like Collodial Blue Guy who ingested that stuff on his accord.

            1. Groovus Maximus|9.1.16 @ 1:26PM| block | mute | #

              He had acid thrown in his face, GIL!

              Technically, he was poisoned (or at least that’s the most-plausible explanation ever provided)

              Would have thought you were intimately familiar with that bit of creepy-history.

              1. The acid remark was a joke, GIL.) Newspapers at that time had seriously made that (libelous) suggestion that he faked it by having acid applied to his face in an effort to garner sympathy in a politically tumultuous time (not unlike now, actually).

                Intimately? Are you implying something, there, GIL? I certainly had nothing to do that, and that happened way before I arrived here… **eyes shift nervously**

    2. Skin color is immutable?you can’t change that

      Sex is also immutable, you know.

  8. Is the la cross team and Nancy Grace invited?

  9. Hello guys

    1. Hello. How’s it hangin?

  10. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.jobsea3.com

    1. And if you *don’t* make a profit, we’ll give you a safe space where you can hide from your creditors!

  11. This used to just be called the Martin Luther King Cultural Center, but he wasn’t inclusive-y enough.

    1. MLK said triggering racist shit like people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It’s like he had no concept of intersectionality at all!

  12. Also… Duke sucks.

    1. I work with a guy who has a Duke MBA and he really isn’t very bright.

      1. Obviously; ‘bright MBA’ is an oxymoron.

    2. I still hate Christian Laettner

      1. And all Duke alumni ever talk about is their goddam basketball team.
        Did anything else happen during their college days? Hard to tell.

    3. If it’s named after David Duke, how good can it possibly be?

      Actually, since it shares a name with the head of the KKK, isn’t the entire school inherently triggering?

      1. To say nothing of the Dukes of Hazzard County, best known for driving around and terrorizing black people with a hate symbol painted on their car.

        1. Come on now, they were never meanin’ no harm.

          1. Can’t have guns on probation, can have dynamite arrows. TV logic.

  13. I won’t ever have to work with these kids, right? I just want to know my workplace will stay as a safe space from these socially retarded snowflakes.

    1. I won’t ever have to work with these kids, right?

      As long as you make all the hiring (and firing) decisions, anyway.

  14. Georgetown Will Give Admissions Preference to Descendants of Slaves It Benefited From

    Georgetown University will give admissions preferences to descendants of the 272 slaves whose sale was used to pay debts at the school in 1838, the school’s president announced Thursday morning. The relevant individuals will be given admissions priority akin to that which exists for children and grandchildren of school alumni.

    Details on how the program will work?such as how all the descendants will be identified and informed of their status?haven’t been released, but President John DeGioia has already met with a number of descendants in Washington state and Louisiana. Georgetown’s statement says the school “intends to engage descendants both on campus and in the cities and communities where they live.”

    Officials at Georgetown, a Jesuit Catholic school, organized the 1838 sale of slaves who worked at a Jesuit-run plantation in Maryland and used a portion of the proceeds to pay school debts.

    1. Details on how the program will work?such as how all the descendants will be identified and informed of their status

      The One Drop Rule is back, baby!

    2. Rewards to those who suffered no harm provided by those who caused none. Wonderful concept; maybe Fauxcahontas can change her story.

      1. Better hope none of your ancestors murdered anyone. Apparently the moral statute of limitations trancends even generations.

  15. the room was conceived of by the Duke public policy school’s Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. Kathryn Whetten, a global health professor and co-chair of the committee, offered her own office as the physical location of the safe space. The idea is to provide a safe, healing space where all sorts of people can feel good about themselves, including students of color, military members, and even conservatives.

    Oh, how precious.

    1. global health professor

      Climatologist?

      1. CONSENSUS!!11!!! EXPERTS!!1!!!!

    2. Duke public policy school’s Committee on Diversity and Inclusion
      “Diversity” = Conformity of Thought
      “Inclusion” = Exclusion of Dissenting Opinions

      These fucks really do think 1984 is an instruction manual.

  16. it will be a special room on campus where students can come when they need to “heal.” A social worker will be present.

    Will there be punch and pie?

    1. “Punch” is triggering.

      1. as is “Pie”

      1. Or just punching?

    2. There will be coloring books. But not this one.

  17. Immigration status and national origin are also not immutable. They are artificial constructs imposed by prevailing institutions in order to justify the application of privilege and punishment by the ruling elite. That these lies have been absorbed into the doxa of society merely demonstrates how gullible people truly are.

    1. National origin isn’t immutable? On an individual basis?

      Ok, so maybe it’s not for people born in Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. But they’re exceptions rather than the rule.

      1. You forgot the Soviet Union. That’s a big one. And South Sudan. And East Timor. And probably something else.

        1. Good catch.

      2. Hey, I may be US-born but I identify as a Japanese immigrant! Just because I’m still looking for a surgeon to do my slanty-eye surgery doesn’t make it less so.

    2. The latest intellectual take on race is supposed to have it that race has no basis in biology.

      Race is supposed to be a social construct.

      “Race and Racial Identity Are Social Constructs”

      New York Times
      http://tinyurl.com/o7hfezv

      How can social constructs be immutable?

    3. No, they’re necessarily safeguards to preserve social order by providing a democracy that amounts to community self-rule within in a static jurisdiction (which is fairly stable) and not bloodless civil war between distinct and extremely rivalrous communities occupying the same territory, which will eventually devolve into tyrannical domination of one community over the other(s) or less bloodless civil war between those communities.

    4. Wait, I thought gender was fluid? Wouldn’t that make it not immutable? Or is gender-fluidity immutable?

  18. Committee on Diversity and Inclusiveness

    A new branch of the Ministry of Love.

    1. I would’ve thought more Ministry of Truth, but maybe.

      1. No, that’s where Politifact operates out of.

  19. Georgetown University will give admissions preferences to descendants of the 272 slaves whose sale was used to pay debts at the school in 1838, the school’s president announced Thursday morning. The relevant individuals will be given admissions priority akin to that which exists for children and grandchildren of school alumni.

    *blows New Year’s Eve toy horn, throws confetti*

  20. Officials at Georgetown, a Jesuit Catholic school, organized the 1838 sale of slaves who worked at a Jesuit-run plantation in Maryland and used a portion of the proceeds to pay school debts.

    They used the money to pay their debts? Fucking Jesuits. They should have spent that money on a party, to stimulate the economy.

  21. “The idea is to provide a safe, healing space where all sorts of people can feel good about themselves, including students of color, military members, and even conservatives.”

    Anyone who feels good about themselves for spending time in such a space is clearly delusional.

    1. Antone using that room should be berated, Kinison-style, for being a bunch of pussies.

      1. You leave Antoine alone. He was just trying to study.

          1. You’re the racist, racist. You couldn’t even be bothered to spell Antoine’s name correctly.

            1. That’s how his mother spelled it.

              Who’s the racist now?

        1. That makes me think this ‘safe space’ will probably get taken over as a study area by the Korean kids.
          Fuckin’ chinks

  22. Repeal motorcycle helmet laws! Yeah, I know that helmetless riders will occasionally end up in a vegetative state but it’s less guaranteed than attending an American university.

    1. First week of college, first class, professor says “raise your hand if you are opposed to laws mandating motorcycle helmets” and mine was the only in a room of 120 people to go up. That was my first real jolt of awareness of how far out of the mainstream I was in thinking the government should stay out of my business if I’m not hurting anyone.

  23. A safe space room is more reasonable than the idiots that try to turn actual classes and seminars into safe spaces. Even more acceptable are private clubs exercising freedom of association to create safe spaces. (What’s not acceptable is when certain types of private clubs are privileged over others.)

    1. Weird, I made a very similar point at about the same time without having seen your post. Creepy man.

  24. Momentarily setting aside sneering, what does it really matter if they have this room? I doesn’t hurt anyone else for them to get together to have a pity party.

    Oops, I forgot I was putting aside the sneering. I suppose any meeting of any kind of campus group or club could be thought of as safe space. Perhaps I’m really into porn where every performer has had their face digitally transformed into a Star Trek character’s face. It’s nice to get together with like-minded people.

    1. We’re not trying to ban the safe space. They’re free to do what they want, as long as tax dollars aren’t being used for it.

      But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be mocked for being such pathetic little twerps that want to retreat from reality rather than confront it.

      Sneering? I sneer at people that deserve it. These people fall into that category.

      1. Oh, I’m good with the sneering. As I said, it was momentary.

      2. Oh my god. There are few groups of people more encased in an intellectual bubble than libertarians. It’s so fucking thick you couldn’t get a fact through with a jackhammer.

        1. Only a proggie would so misunderstand physics that he’d think a jackhammer can pound an idea.

          They also think changing symptoms affects the causes, as if moving a speedometer needle will change a car’s speed.

        2. Unlike progs, most of us happily associate with people who don’t share the same political beliefs, up to and including marrying them.

        3. We may be encased in an intellectual bubble. But that’s because we try to deal with things from a principled, and sometimes absolute, manner.

          I find that accusation complimentary.

          1. So you’ve discovered the one absolutist dogma that is just right in all things.

            1. Yes. It’s called the NAP.

        4. Really? In what world are libertarians ‘protected’ from having to hear people with opposing viewpoints? Quite the opposite, they’re bombarded by the perpetually. I literally had professors in college who called Milyon Friedman and Hayek idiots, unequivocally stated that support for capitalism is motivated by white supremacy, and that opposong expanded social programs was sociopathic.

          Maybe you should consider that when it’s socially acceptable to overtly malign someone’s views, they cease to empathize with those who want to be protected from any criticism. Then you’d understand why no one around here cares for safe spaces for infantile progressives. Seriously, pull your head out of your ass for just a moment Tony and you won’t see things ass backwards.

    2. They’re fetishizing the violation of other people’s rights.

      There is a prevalent and growing movement on the left to say that our rights are invalid when exercising them harms other people, but a free society depends on the freedom to harm others.

      Sometimes it’s necessary in a free society to criticize other people and hurt their feelings. Sometimes, when people want to implement Jim Crow, send American citizens of Japanese ancestry to internment camps, conscript 19 year old kids to fight in a war they oppose, or force people to study creationism in public schools, it’s necessary for free people to say things that hurt other people’s feelings.

      Yeah, that means homophobes, racists, warmongers, religious nutjobs get to say things that hurt other people, too.

      This is what it means to live in a free society. Safe rooms are an attempt to insulate people from a free society.

      1. P.S. We should all be free to do anything so long as it doesn’t harm anyone violate anyone’s rights.

        1. (Except their right to a clean environment, education, healthcare, transportation, childcare, not starving to death, and literally every other facet of modern civilization except owning shit and defending it with firearms. But other than that, freedom!)

          1. Tony, education and childcare are right’s? So in your world I can go up to an old lady down the street who watches a few kids and put a gun to her face and demand that she watch mine for free? I just don’t understand a mind that could think such things.

            It’s Tony, I know it’s futile

            1. Sure you do. You think having government goons come and put a gun to the head of a trespasser is a right. Even a fundamental or natural right. No? What’s the difference, other than “because I say so”?

              1. You think having government goons come and put a gun to the head of a trespasser is a right

                I already have my own guns for that, no thanks to you feudalists.

                1. The obvious and usual copout. It is the fundamental problem with libertarianism. You don’t get to weasel out of it by appealing to anarchy.

                  1. The obvious and usual copout

                    Followed by the obvious and usual goalpost shifting.

                    You don’t get to weasel out of it by appealing to anarchy.

                    Strawman torched!

              2. So you think trespassing is a right that supersedes my property rights?

                At some point rights must be enforced. When does that trespasser cross that threshold? After he builds a house on my land? After he starts taking a shit in my car? After he comes in and rapes my wife?

                I would prefer that he recognize my rights instead of me recognizing his theft as “fair” or “just”.

                1. The issue is why one thing is a (taxpayer-supported) right while the other isn’t (walking around freely doesn’t even require any subsidy).

              3. Tony, we will always be two ships passing in the night until you understand the difference between force used in aggression and force used in defense.

                I know you’ve heard all this before…

                It starts with the idea of self-ownership. Do you think that is a legitimate concept?

                If I claim something, like a piece of land or a screwdriver, and no one else has a claim, and I do not aggress against anyone, then it is mine. It is part of my self-ownership. I suppose this is the part that you would say is “because I say so”.

                Since I, like you, am not an anarchist, I think there should be a government. But only a defensive one, whose purpose is to help me defend my self-ownership.

                Do you really see no moral distinction between aggression and defense?

                1. Is self-ownership a legitimate concept? I think it’s a made-up concept, though not necessarily a malignant one. All the ideas that form the conceptual structure of modern society are fabrications. Many of them are useful ones.

                  So self-ownership is pretty basic and pretty necessary for what most anyone would consider a free society. Libertarians, of course, extend the idea to encompass owning things. I’m not sure how this is justified, but since we’re talking about made-up things anyway, no harm done.

                  What is bullshit is the idea that any of this is inherent to the fabric of the cosmos. That by divine decree, thou shalt have property rights but none other. Property rights do not differ in any meaningful way from any other right that demands action on behalf of others, including their tax money. It is certainly not what some might describe as a negative right. It’s by definition an imposition on would-be trespassers. Property isn’t anything but a piece of government paper declaring your right to have a third-party escort away or shoot trespassers and thieves. I’m sure we all agree on this.

                  1. So this is hardly a government that is merely being defensive. Why does the right of the property owner trump the right of the trespasser to walk as he pleases? Because pieces of paper written by bureaucrats say so, and they compel men with guns, paid salaries out of the communal treasury, to enforce them.

                    There is simply no philosophical grounds here to call other rights claims illegitimate. But there’s no need either. Just defend a society in which rights are so minimal that nobody has a right to anything but socialist armed property protection. Defend that society on its merits. Or can’t you, because it sounds like a horrible society?

                  2. “Libertarians, of course, extend the idea to encompass owning things”.

                    Of course it’s not just libertarians. It’s a large majority of everybody on earth. Pretty much the only people who have rejected the very notion of private property, like you have, are the communists and socialists who have created despotic hell-holes like the Soviet Union and Venezuela.

                    I’m ok with the idea that these concepts are not part of the fabric of the cosmos. But they are a moral system that has produced bounty and peace the world over.

                    1. I’m making a distinction. I’m okay with an enforced right to self-ownership and an enforced right to own and keep property, but I don’t conflate them, the only purpose of which is to conveniently place property rights and all the government force that entails under the same umbrella where logic can’t get at it. So they are distinct rights, and in the real world they exist among many other rights. Libertarians try to justify their rights-minimalism logically, but it doesn’t work, so that’s why I humbly ask that you simply defend the form of society you want on its merits alone rather than appeal to silly and unjustified mysticism that says you’re right because you say so.

                    2. I don’t agree but it is thought provoking.

                  3. Libertarians, of course, extend the idea to encompass owning things. I’m not sure how this is justified, but since we’re talking about made-up things anyway, no harm done

                    Is this just an extension of the “all property is theft” communist nonsense? That bullshit passed its expiration date when Ceaucescu and his wife were properly assassinated.

                    1. “All property is theft” may or may not be a good idea, but it’s no more or less an Eternal Truth than “Get off my lawn” is.

                    2. So why whine about people being able to defend it with the force of arms, without having to call a cop to do it for us? The concept of private property is as old as human settlement. If you don’t like it, that’s your call, but there are ways for you to gambol within the structures of current society.

                  4. Is self-ownership a legitimate concept?

                    Said every slaver, ever.

                    Fuck off, slaver.

          2. You left the word “free” out many many times. here, let me help you, and I’ll do it for free.

            (Except their right to a clean environment, free education, free healthcare, free transportation, free childcare, free food, and literally every other facet of modern civilization except owning shit and defending it with firearms.

            Cuz welp you sure have no need to won shit when it’s all free, and you sure have no need to defend shit when it’s free.

            1. I left out “free” because I don’t believe it. They’re not free, they’re paid for collectively. Just like the cops and courts necessary to secure your precious property rights.

              1. They’re not free, they’re paid for collectively others.

                That’s the problem, Tony. You are going for positive rights. We think there are only negative rights, and positive “rights” are entitlements.

                1. Negative rights like taxpayer funded police and courts and prisons that are necessary to secure your claim to property?

          3. A right is a choice, Tony.

            I have the right to choose what I say, my own religion, who I associate with, whether to own a gun, etc.

            I have the right to choose a clean environment.

            I don’t have the right to make choices for other people.

            1. Sure, but Tony does. His right has progressed so far as to become a duty.

            2. You have the right to choose a clean environment? How does that work?

              1. I can choose to pay more for products that don’t hurt the environment. I can buy an electric car and run it off of hydro created electricity.

                There’s one example.

                Have you heard about the American Prairie Initiative or the private efforts of the Nature Conservancy?

                I can choose to give money to them, and they use it to buy land on the open market and protect it.

                Pollution of third parties’ property can be a problem, but do you know why it’s a problem?

                Because it doesn’t respect the right of third parties to make a choice for themselves.

                If you’re saying that libertarians are wrong because pollution violates the right of third parties to make choices for themselves, then you’re being self-contradictory. You’re taking a libertarian position. If you think that pollution is wrong because it violates the rights of third parties to make choices for themselves, then you agree with Hayek.

                Again, the basic problem here is ignorance–and the inability to learn. You’ve been reading this site for however many years, but you’re so partisan, you still don’t know what we think.

                You’re a willfully blind ignoramus, and because of that, you can’t even learn.

                1. So why do the vast majority of libertarians feel it necessary to be ridiculous imbecilic science-deniers when a problem arises that, you claim, can be dealt with by libertarian principles anyway?

                  The fact is, and I’m hardly the first one to point it out, that unpredictable external costs happen and can’t be dealt with without violating libertarians’ basic tenets for how societies should run. It’s the basic reason no society has seen it useful to implement libertarian principles–and the ones that even begin down the road fail miserably.

                  1. So why do the vast majority of libertarians feel it necessary to be ridiculous imbecilic science-deniers when a problem arises

                    Assuming the conclusion, Tony. Namely, that there has been a scientific demonstration that there is a problem.

                  2. “The fact is, and I’m hardly the first one to point it out, that unpredictable external costs happen and can’t be dealt with without violating libertarians’ basic tenets for how societies should run.”

                    You’re not the first person to be completely wrong on that issue.

                    Hayek wasn’t the first person to propose libertarian solutions when he wrote about that problem in 1943 either.

                    1. Your argument about the vast majority of libertarians denying the science is horseshit.

                      It isn’t the science they’re objecting to. Universally, it’s the authoritarian and socialist solutions to which they object. If it seems like they’re objecting to science, it’s because they’re saying the science doesn’t justify the blatant stupidity of authoritarian solutions. “Even IF IF IF we have an ingrown toenail”, they’re saying, “that’s not a good reason to shoot ourselves in the foot”.

                      “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.”

                      —The Road to Serfdom

                      Jesus, Hayek responded to your criticism eons ago. You’ve been reading this site for years. Why don’t you already know about that?

                      The head science writer at Reason threw in the towel on global warming almost a decade ago.

                      Why don’t you know that?

          4. So I have a right to the food in your pantry and the books in your study? Alright, give your address and I’ll be right over to take what I need. They’re my rights after all.

        2. Ken, of course they should be criticized and called-out for being the whimpering little infants they are.

          But I was just thinking of perspective, and how it’ normal for people to get together with others like them, often for the purpose of avoiding ridicule or distraction.

          1. I should add, the problem here is the institutionalization of this shit. That is what makes it different from a club that just gets together on its own. I understand that that is an important distinction.

            1. Yeah, but we can criticize private parties, as well!

              Just because I’m a private party doesn’t mean you have to like me or what I do.

              Maybe you think I stink!

              Some people do.

              But women find me irresistible.

    3. Momentarily setting aside sneering, what does it really matter if they have this room?

      It is an open expression of the schools acceptance and advancement of a toxic ideology.

  25. Fucking pussies.

    That’s all I got.

    1. You tried to stay away, but couldn’t resist our sweet, sweet candy.

      1. Well, you weren’t eating it and it would be a shame to waste it.

      2. You’re right.
        ::retreats to safe space hollowed out volcano lair::

  26. “We want to have a place for people who feel marginalized and face constant attention for characteristics that are immutable?like their skin color or their religion, their immigration status or whether they’re from another country?to be able to heal,” Whetten told The Chronicle.”

    My skin color turns dark in the sun.

    My religious beliefs have changed over the years.

    I’ve known people whose immigration status has changed.

    One of them changed the country they were from to “United States” rather than somewhere else.

    Not immutable.

    My individual rights are immutable in that even if they’re violated or I willingly forego them, they’re still there and what they always were.

    1. My skin color turns dark in the sun.

      I used to get very dark in the summer too. My cousin-and-play-pal’s black hair would turn to blond in August in wake of the summer sun. I have affection for my cousin and the Jim Morrison lyric “Noon burned gold into out hair”.

      1. That’s generally what happens to me: My hair turns blond and my skin goes dark.

        If all you saw was my arm, you’d probably guess I was Mexican. It’s going to the beach a lot and living in SoCal.

        I remember seeing a story on television, once, about these two kids who claimed to be Caucasian. Their parents had been missionaries to Africa, but they both died out in the bush. They had two young children at the time, and the locals adopted them. Genetic testing was relatively new at the time, but they were claiming to be Danish or some such thing. To look at them on television, you’d have thought they were black Africans. They weren’t.

        Looking for a link . . .

  27. You expected something different from the Committee on Diversity and Inclusiveness?

  28. So what happens when there’s a scheduling conflict and the Jew with dreadlocks has to share with the Israel divestment snowflake and the cultural appropriation hunter?

    1. Fisty, that’s all the same person, it’s not a scheduling conflict, the poor bastard is all alone.

      1. So his mother was the surgeon?

        1. !

    2. FoE is such a racist homophobe, I can hardly believe it.

      1. Speaking of racists, I just realized I haven’t seen Irish around here in a while. Anyone know what’s up with that?

        1. Isn’t that Fusionist?

          Or Diane? Or is that Paul?

          I don’t know. People change their names, and there oughtta be a law!

          1. Is it? You may be correct. I can’t keep up.

          2. Fusionist is Eddy, and Diane is Paul. Irish hasn’t been around for good while.

    3. Jews have been searching for a safe space for thousands of years, and they’re not going to fall for the idea that a safe space magically opened up at an American university.

  29. So it’s kind of like major Econ departments, that is, a place where students are sheltered from exposure to any challenge to their bullshit preconceived notions? What, just because they’re corporate-funded doesn’t make them a safe space?

    1. Your anti-intellectual take on economics makes climate change deniers look like world-class intellectuals.

      If you think all schools of economics are the same because they all agree that you’re a magnificent ignoramus, Tony, then you don’t know anything about economics.

      This article lists some 25+ different schools of thought.

      http://tinyurl.com/jrm5pbu

      That you’re not familiar with any of them is telling.

      1. Charles and David Koch have given hundreds of millions of dollars to fund economics programs in universities as well as courses all the way down to kindergarten level that proselytize on free-market ideology. It’s been said before, but surely the irony is not lost on you that the only reason libertarian belief (i.e., this magazine) and libertarian economics persist at all is because of massive subsidy, mostly from these two individuals, and not from any actual value in the marketplace of ideas.

        It’s not that all economics programs are the same, it’s that the ones that teach the bullshit you believe have a much bigger market share than they’re entitled to based on their academic merit.

        1. But Soros and Bill Gates and Buffet are all ok? And the Clinton Foundation, can’t forget them.

          1. Are they funding academic programs with the intention of disseminating a particular ideology? If so, let me know and I’ll condemn it.

            1. Are you condemning the government? They are sure as hell funding academic programs with the intention of disseminating a particular ideology.

              I guess Tony’s become a libertarian.

        2. The current dominant economics school is Keynesian. But the Koch brothers weren’t around when Keynes was formulating it. Where do we libertarians find our version of the Koch brothers that we can blame for that?

        3. Massive corporate subsidies are only admirable when extracted at gunpoint and given to the favored causes of our superiors.

        4. You’re a buffoon.

          The link I gave you lists these schools of economics just in the 20th century:

          Austrian School
          Biological economics
          Chicago School
          Constitutional economics
          Ecological economics
          Evolutionary economics
          Freiburg School
          Freiwirtschaft
          Georgism
          Institutional economics
          Keynesian economics
          Marxian (Marxist) and neo-Marxian economics
          Neo-Ricardianism
          New classical macroeconomics
          New Keynesian economics
          Post-Keynesian economics
          Public Choice school
          School of Lausanne
          Stockholm school

          These schools disagree with each other on all sorts of issues, and econ departments all over the country have professors that disagree with each other on all sorts of issues.

          The only thing they all might agree on, from the Marxian school to the Chicago school, is that your statement means you’re an ignoramus.

        5. “So it’s kind of like major Econ departments, that is, a place where students are sheltered from exposure to any challenge to their bullshit preconceived notions?”

          You literally know less than nothing. If you forgot everything you “know” about economics, your knowledge level would increase on the subject.

          What you “know” about economics is dumber than creationism.

          You should probably start with the idea that if Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, it because he was aware of his own ignorance.

          I’d encourage you to graduate to awareness of your own ignorance today, Tony, and I’d say that you’d be much wiser than you were yesterday.

          . . . but I don’t think you can. You’ve been given so many opportunities, and you always fail. Even when your face is rubbed in the truth, you refuse to see it. You’re pathetic.

        6. What marketplace of ideas, Tony, you fucking retard? The marketplace of ideas that is the federal public education system? Hahahahahaha! Public education, and educrats themselves, are overwhelmingly leftist and progressive.

          The Kochs fund PBS, too. Better turn it off before they infect your brain with their evil mind rays of doom.

          1. You do appreciate that Libertopia is a place where you only get access to the information that the wealthiest individuals want you to have. And isn’t that more insidious a problem than direct government propaganda, which is at least recognizable? Government can have a bias toward this or that ideology, but there isn’t one baked into its very nature. The same can’t be said for wealthy interests, which only by superhuman benevolence would fund programs teaching the virtues of high taxation and such.

            1. The very nature of government is power. It is the only entity that can legally initiate force against another.

              How can you say with a straight face that the ideology of power is not baked into the very nature of government?

              1. I think that’s a valid and interesting point.

                It raises the question of whether there is an alternative to government, or power, in some form or another. I happen to believe that without a modern democratic government we’d be stuck with various time-tested means of oppression that are all worse.

                But maybe it’s true that there is no such thing as a bias-free education. It’s food for thought.

                1. I agree with you Tony that without a government providing the rule of law, society would be worse off.

                  The key is to not let one entity take control of something completely. The government has a dangerously large portion of the education market because it has deployed its power to make that so.

                  It is simply not a credible idea that if government weren’t providing education that it would be similarly monopolized by the “wealthiest individuals”.

                  You’re right, there is no bias-free education. Nor should there be. Let millions of biases bloom!

            2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This has to be performance art.

              Yeah, the ultra-rich are gonna be the masters of information in an age when everybody can carry a personal device that contains more information than a fucking Cray supercomputer did. And when charitable trusts and religious institutions continue to provide educations far superior than those provided at government indoctrination centers.

              You stupid fucking bastard.

              1. So is a free libertarian society only possible once the world’s most powerful government invents things like the internet and other modern technologies first?

                1. What government invented the Internet? Don’t give me that bullshit that the US government did.

                  Also, what “other modern technologies” did they invent? And let’s compare that list to what free marketers looking for profit and other private actors have invented.

                  1. The computer. The Internet. Going to space. That is, the entire infrastructure of modern communications.

    2. No, because corporations just want to murder people. Especially their customers. It’s how they make money. By murdering people. Everybody knows that. Corporate-funded classes are just detailed seminars on how to murder people and get away with it.

    3. So it’s kind of like major Econ departments, that is, a place where students are sheltered from exposure to any challenge to their bullshit preconceived notions?

      Or Humanities departments where the Holy Trinity of Class, Gender, and Ethnicity has been dogma for 40+ years.

      1. A characterization you came to after much observation of major humanities departments?

        1. Graduate study, several years of conferences where their work was represented and political beliefs put on full display–so, yeah.

          1. I mostly studied the works of dead white guys at my school.

            1. I didn’t say they were completely neglected.

    4. I guarantee you every Econ major knows more about Keynes (and not some straw man of him) than any polisci major knows about Becker, Friedman, or Hayek.

      Of course there’s a limit: we don’t teach creationism in college bio classes so why should Marx be taught in college econ.

  30. RE: Duke University Has a Safe Space Room. For ‘Healing.’
    We wouldn’t want to expose students to contrary ideas.

    This is a wonderful idea to protect those who have been properly indoctrinated into socialist thought against the evil doubters, capitalist and other bourgeois counter-revolutionaries that have the temerity to question some clueless, over-educated idiot’s never ending reciting the welcoming and enlightening wisdom of Karl Marx, may his name be blessed, and other kind, humane and generous socialists who took the time and trouble to share their profound wisdom with this tortured world. I am sure there are couches to lie down on so a health care professional can cure the trauma of listening to anti-socialist thoughts. I am sure there are government officials there to put the victims of vile pro-capitalists propaganda on the welfare roles, and I’m sure there is somewhere there at Duke University to distribute rubber bands to these poor unfortunate victims of hate. This way the poor victim of anti-socialist thought will be able to put the rubber band around his leg so the ants won’t crawl up his leg and eat his candy ass.

  31. FreeRadical makes a good point. When I was in college we didn’t have designated safe spaces, but what we did have were clubs and fraternities and such where people who shared certain traits or ideas got together for mutual edification. The little house where the gay alliance met was a safe space for gays. The room where College Republicans met was a safe space for them. What the point is of generalized safe spaces is still not something I can wrap my head around. If there really were an oppressive environment, seems like a good place to paint a big fat target for the campus bullies.

    1. People have been getting together with like-minded people since the beginning of time. The problem now is the institutionalized pants-wetting that is going on.

      1. Whose panties are wetter, the safe-spacers or the ones whining about the safe-spacers?

        1. I don’t recall fraternities mewling that wrongthink was permanently traumatizing them.

          1. Of course they do. They’re the strictest and most squeamish of all.

            I remember having a Rocky Horror Picture Show party at a friend’s room in a frat house. We didn’t go all out, but did put on a little makeup. How do you think that went over? With peace love and understanding?

            1. How do you think that went over? With peace love and understanding?

              It’s not their fault you were born so ugly.

    2. The problem is only certain groups are allowed to fraternize like that on campus anymore. Male-only groups are often either banished or severely penalized; ideological or religious groups on many campuses are no longer allowed to restrict membership to those who belong to them, and such rules are almost always selectively enforced.

  32. their right to a clean environment, education, healthcare, transportation, childcare, not starving to death,

    You keep using that word…

    1. I know, only you people get to define what rights we have. And your random whims trump written law and centuries of legal tradition.

      1. I think it’s a universally understood principle among decent human beings that each persons rights end when they infringe on another’s. Therefore I think it’s fair to say you don’t have a right to transportation or food or shelter if it’s at the expense of it being forcibly taken from another person under threat of fine or imprisonment.

        I’m sure you disagree because you are a thief at heart. And a jealous, pathetic one at that.

        1. Thief, jealous, and pathetic. You left out Fascist.

          1. I also left out “useless fuckhole” but some things can be assumed.

        2. If no taxation is permitted, then only anarchy is permitted. Since that’s fucking dumb, taxation must be OK, in which case the programs it pays for is simply a matter of public debate.

          1. Oh, so wage taxation is the only way a government can collect funds? Huh, I guess use fees are an imaginary construct like unicorn farts or social justice.

            1. Did I say any such thing?

              1. You explicitly said the only alternative to it is anarchy. I can’t see how you said anything different since you said without taxation the only alternative is anarchy.

                1. But I didn’t say “wage taxation.”

                  1. What other type of taxation is there? Every penny the government takes, under threat of fine or imprisonment, based on earnings is wage taxation.

                    1. An inheritance isn’t a wage.

                    2. The hell it isn’t. Unless the person willing it to the other has a printing press. But then they’re a counterfeiter.

                    3. It’s not a wage to the inheritor. Neither is winning the lottery. Neither is a candy bar you buy.

                    4. So you would support a 100% tax on inheritances

                    5. Nah, but don’t tell me all wealth is the earned product of rational market forces plus hard work.

          2. Tony why don’t the public servants work for free for the common good?

            1. Why on earth would they?

              1. For the common good since you said we have rights to all this free stuff per your own logic of course

        3. Tony’s been told that a right is a right to make a choice a hundred times over the years.

          Once again in this very thread!

          He willfully refuses to understand. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

          Libertarians: “A right is the right to make a choice for yourself, Tony”.

          Tony: “But who decides which choices I get to make?”

          Libertarians: “You should be free to make choices for yourself so long as you respect the right of other people to make choices for themselves, Tony”.

          Tony: “But who decides which choices they get to make?”

          Libertarians: “They should be free to make choices for themselves–so long as they respect your right to make a choice for yourself, Tony”.

          Tony: “You’re all taking money from the Koch brothers!”

          1. Things are not true merely because they are simple enough for you to understand them.

            Does a starving person have a meaningful right to choose anything? Why does someone’s right not to be stolen from trump her right to eat? Rather, why is the former a right and the latter not one? Who says?

            1. So I can just walk in to chipotle and steal food?

              1. If I happen to be hungry

                1. No, but you can rightly demand to know where the justice is in a system that protects Chipotle’s abstract right to ownership but not your concrete right to live and breathe.

                  1. So since I have a right to breathe and eat I can institute slavery to mee that right?

                  2. So you think justice lies a lot closer to “equality of outcome” than “equality of opportunity”.

                    Why not just go full commie then? Eliminate all private property and assign people jobs at birth for the common good?

                    1. It’s not my fault you choose to exaggerate everything into the most extreme possible scenario. I suspect this mental habit might be why you’re a libertarian, though.

                      It’s hard to have equality of opportunity if you’re starving, wouldn’t you say?

                    2. So you support theft? Well I am hungry now so why don’t you pay up?

                    3. I don’t know, is it? Does the opportunity for someone change based on their BMI?

                    4. There is a capitalism-centric argument for things like welfare or a basic income, which is that once people’s basic needs are taken care of they are free to behave in a more rational-market-based way as they go on to participate in the economy genuinely freely.

                      If you’re struggling to acquire basic needs then you’re also not spending a lot of time learning skills that are valuable in the marketplace. I think we have ample empirical evidence that extreme wealth inequality stagnates economic growth.

                    5. It’s more like stagnant economic growth causes more extreme wealth inequality.

              2. You just rang the Playa Manhattan alarm.

                It was a truck question, wasn’t it? Because you wouldn’t go into Chipotle to steal food unless you were extremely constipated.

          2. He willfully refuses to understand.

            That’s because rights are opportunities, and he correctly surmises that he is incapable of taking advantage of opportunities.

            He wants entitlements, paid for by others, because he correctly surmises that is what is keeping him from living in a cardboard box.

            1. All rights are entitlements paid for by others. Sometimes with blood.

      2. Nobody gets to define what rights people have. theres right and there’s wrong, regardless of how anyone defines it. Otherwise our moral quibbles over the holocaust may as well be a difference in opinion about the best flavor of ice cream.

  33. Tony since I have a right to healthcare will you give me money for my college loans and medical bills?

    1. Yes, via taxation and redistribution.

      1. Why won’t you pony up and eliminate middle man? Who is going to be taxed more to pay for all these goodies?

        You know you talk a big game and then expect others to do the actual work. Not sure how that is progress or how you consider yourself caring

        1. Because that misses the point. Instead of asking me kindergarten questions about how taxation works, why don’t you defend anarchy on its merits, as you seem to be implying you favor?

          1. I never said anarchy.

            Just wondering why a compassionate person such as yourself is being so stingy since I have a right to education and healthcare? Can you give me money for food?

            Do you think you are a caring individual?

            1. The point is it doesn’t matter whether I’m a caring individual. Society functions because government goons compel me to contribute to the collective good. Unless (maybe) I’m wealthy enough to be totally autonomous, I benefit from such an arrangement.

              1. Ok so why can’t you help me out? You want to take credit for being caring and noble but yet balk at the opportunity

                Do you support 100 percent tax rates? Do you think my money really belongs to the state? If so that would mean yours is as well so wondering why you don’t pay up

                1. I’m not so much into charity. It’s just that I live in an urban area, and if I gave to everyone who came up and asked I’d be broke. So go panhandle to someone else, thanks.

                  No I don’t support 100% tax rates. I think I’m fairly confident on that one. Nor do I think your money belongs to the state. Only that which you owe in taxes. In a free democratic society such as ours, belonging to the state means belonging to the people. As a species we do things collectively by pooling resources. We have always done so, and it has always been enforced one way or another. I think you’ll find you prefer the IRS to more the primitive means we’ve experimented with.

                  1. How does one determine how much you owe in taxes? What if the state says 100 percent? What is fair share?

                    Educate me

                    And do me a favor stop acting so caring if you don’t want to actually do so….blue balls and a cock tease if you will

                    1. Tax rates should be determined by legislators acting rationally on behalf of the people they represent using sound information. Given the existence of Republicans, I realize this sounds more like a fairy tale than it should.

                      If they tax you at a rate not to your liking, you are free to vote for the other guy next time.

                    2. What if republicans who were voted in want lower taxes? Would that be ok with you?

                  2. Since we belong to the state and you support enforced collectivism…doesn’t that mean you view people as slaves?

                  3. How does one live in a free democratic society if they belong and are owned by the state?

                    Pooling resources? Do you support voluntary cooperation then?

  34. Tony so the United States isn’t primarily a free market? What economics do you support?

    1. Chavismo, would be my guess.

  35. Thanks for coming back Tony. I haven’t seen you around here in a long time.

  36. Tony do you use fossil fuels?

    1. Since I have a right to a clean environment can I suggest you have given up all direct and indirect uses of fossil fuels

  37. Tony wouldnt a right to healthcare mean you can force people to give you healthcare which is slavery?

  38. Tony here is the issue i have:

    Repeatedly you have talked about the common good, caring for others, not being greedy/selfish. That is wonderful

    However when push comes to shove, you become very stingy when it comes to helping others out with your money (*or per your own logic it is the state’s collective money)….you wont give me a dime. Why not?

    What i suspect is you are really greedy/selfish because you feel entitled to force others to give you free crap. Yet you can’t reciprocate. Others are there to work for you.

    Not going to lie it seems like others money is your money, while your money is your money

    *PS since it really isn’t your money and it belongs to the state…why don’t you give me some??

    1. I am as greedy and selfish as anyone else. Maybe more than average even. But being individually generous of spirit and supporting a modern civilized state are two separate concepts. The point of the latter is to free everyone up to be as greedy or generous as they please. It’s called freedom.

      1. But you are continually taking credit for how caring you are….you say I have a right to all these things but you won’t give them to me.

        This implies you support slavery.

        1. I’ve never claimed to be a caring person and I’ll thank you not to slander me so in the future.

          1. Yes you do

  39. Tony philosophically what if no one wants to be nurses and doctors? Can you enslave them since you have a right to healthcare?

    1. Hey, an actual good question. The more general question is what if market forces alone don’t provide people with access to a basic need. The answer is of course government subsidy!

      1. So you support forced occupation then?

        1. Not sure how that follows.

          1. Well if no one wants to provide healthcare then how do you make it a right for you to have?

            1. If no one wants to provide healthcare even when incentivized beyond market rates by government subsidy, then I guess we have to live in a society with no healthcare.

              1. Thanks. Is sex a right?

                1. Not that I know of.

              2. Avoiding the question is the same as answering it. Why do t you move to Venezuela already so the government can tell you where you’ll be most useful to the collective good and put you there.

      2. “Hey, an actual good question.”
        Which, as a lefty slimebag, you didn’t answer.

        “The more general question is what if market forces alone don’t provide people with access to a basic need. The answer is of course government subsidy!”
        Well, surprise! Lefty slimebag posits a hypothetical and then assumes to answer it!

  40. Tony are you depressed? I had depression once…not fun. You seem like a miserable person. Perhaps you would feel better, a warmth in that cold cold heart, to help me out

  41. Tony have you ever donated any money? Or worked at a soup kitchen?

    1. Yes; no. I don’t like poor people.

      1. Wow there it is folks

        1. To be specific, I don’t like being around poor people. All the more reason for me to favor a welfare state funded by taxes I can send off from the comfort of my desk.

  42. Tony why do you think I should work for you to get free stuff? And if you are working and being taxed…why not call it a wash?

    Tony since rich people pay more in taxes via higher effective rates…are you grateful? Or bitter you don’t get more?

  43. Tony above…

    So what you are saying other folks should work spend time and money to make and produce food…and you should be able to just steal it from them cause you are hungry?

  44. Tony above…

    So what you are saying other folks should work spend time and money to make and produce food…and you should be able to just steal it from them cause you are hungry?

    1. A question grappled with by no less than Victor Hugo.

      1. Did he also grapple with the misery if living without free broadband, homeopathic medicine, and a degree in gender studies?

  45. Tony what is your effective tax rate? How much do you make? How do I know you are paying your fair share?

  46. Tony do you itemize and minimize taxes?

  47. Tony why should I pay so you can afford to live in a luxurious urban area?

  48. Tony say Trump wins and the house and senate stay Red (you know democratic election) and they decide the price of society is actually lower….thus lower taxes would you support this? Since you are all about democracy in a free society.

    1. I respect as legitimate the outcomes of legitimate democratic processes. Nobody is required to like them.

      1. So you’d be cool with it then?

        1. Can you distinguish between seeing an outcome as legitimate and liking it?

  49. My Duke degree (plus my own efforts) has allowed me to retire a multi-millionaire.
    But because of policies like this, Duke will not get a cent from me.
    Choices have consequences.

  50. I could be wrong,but this “safe space” business sounds to me like a place where one would not be exposed to ideas or thinking other than such as they came into town with. Is this desirable? I would think not, but then that is just what I think.

  51. I just want to make sure I have this right. Religion and immigration status are immutable, but gender is not. Is that correct? You are stuck being a Catholic, but you can be gender fluid. Zhe can never be naturalized.

  52. You wouldn’t believe it, but Durham is remarkable in that among ordinary normal people here, there is no race thing at all. The white people are people, the black people are people, nobody gives it a thought at all.

    I guess all the racist assholes are magnetically contained in Duke and UNC Chapel Hill, and they never leave the orbit to bother the ordinary normal people outside those institutions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.