Why Bloomberg's own logic doesn't hold up about safe spaces

            I've had pretty good friends disagree with me on the function of safe spaces, but I often find myself shocked at how people evaluate these spaces. At the very core of it, people who disagree with safe spaces often do so not for any legitimate first amendment reasoning or intellectual progressiveness, but because they don't actually believe the people who need the safe spaces have a legitimate claim to them. In the process of explaining these safe spaces, I'm going to provide yet another reason for why Michael Bloomberg is an ass, which honestly is just a bonus for me as a New Yorker.
              Safe Spaces are a reaction to the normal vitriol minorities face from the outside world via microagressions.  Imagine if anywhere you go on campus you can come across beliefs that are antithetical to your own. More than that, these beliefs often make you feel less than. Beliefs such as: you just got into this school because of affirmative action. Or perhaps "black parties are shut down because black students are wilder than white students" My personal favorite is when someone who isn't black uses the N-word and justifies the use by claiming they hear black people use it all the time. Even past this petty shit, you'll have Donald Trump rallies that will openly call for the deportation of american citizens. You'll have history classes that constantly affirm white narratives, leaving you with specially designated minority classes (or if your white professor is progressive, he'll try really hard to choose one book from a woman or minority, but only one!). All of this reflects the normative experience for a minority. It's taxing. It's frustrating. If you do not believe that it's taxing and frustrating, then you now have your reason for why you think safe spaces should not exist: minorities are crybabies. Don't give me the nonsense about how they prevent learning other viewpoints. Minorities do not have a choice on whether they learn differing viewpoints. Differing viewpoints are shoved down our throats. Normative assumptions about us are shoved down our throats. Microaggressions are shoved down our throats. And unless I intend to just not be a student, I'm going to have to deal with them. So why can't I have a place where I know once in awhile I do not have to deal with them?
           People like Bloomberg argue that giving you this safe space prevents you from learning how to deal with these so called microagressions. I disagree. I believe giving you a safe space empowers you not to accept them. And that's the real issue. People like Bloomberg believe that it's a certain reality that minorities of all kind will have to deal with this shit in the workplace, so might as well get used to it now. But why? Why can't I instead say, ya know I can't keep you from acting like an ass in everyday interactions, but this space or time right here I'm going to ensure you can't plague me with your negative comments. Why must minorities be taught it is ok for people to insult their very person nonchalantly and more so accept those beliefs. The notion that Bloomberg is in favor of radical change is false because any attempt to do so (look at the Yale incident as a perfect example of this) is typically met with ardent backlash. Instead people want minorities to accept the jokes, accept the criticism and give a fake smile afterwards. But minorities have decided to say fuck that shit. So we have our safe spaces, where we don't need to hear about this nonsense and if we do want to discuss it. we are able to discuss it without feeling like our candid feelings will upset some sort of balance in the universe.
        So let's be honest. You don't actually believe safe spaces are holding back intellectual progress. You just think minorities need to stop being crybabies. Well I'm glad you're able to tell me and every other minority how to feel. Opinion duly noted. Good bye. 

The Social Justice Community and Minority Movements are not one in the same

                                   This has been a topic I've thought about a good deal. First,I feel I have a unique vantage point when it comes to these two distinct communities. Growing up I was very much a part of the "anti-political correctness crowd" to the point that I considered myself Republican, while conveniently ignoring how they stood in opposition to the morals I hold near and dear to my heart (to be fair to myself, I preferred moderate Republicans, Ted Cruz and his ilk always seemed outlandish to me). Then I went to college and they filled me with their liberal nonsense, turning me into a no good hippie. My hair was long. My sentences overly complicated. And I started using lingo like intersectionality and white people. Now that I am close to two years of separation from college, I've mellowed out to a more moderate position that still leans heavily towards my liberal roots. One thing remained constant during that entire period of ideological shift. I was Puerto Rican. More importantly I was aware of the larger struggle minorities had been facing for centuries and while college amplified my disgust with institutional biases, the gut wrenching feeling of playing a "fixed game" was always there. So one could say I was always part of the minority struggle and I don't mean to incorrectly coalesce all minority struggles, but for the sake of how they depart from the social justice community, I think there's some uniformity to be had. As someone entering a community with allegiance to another, the demarcation between one community and another becomes crystal clear. That being said, I think my main argument is that the social justice movement/community and the minority communities/movements are not one in the same nor are they never mutually exclusive. People often think the social justice community falls in file rank with minority communities, but that is sometimes not true. Furthermore, there are radical aspects to some minority movements that make them mutually exclusive with the social justice community. But for me to even begin to explain these points of tension, let me unpack some of my perceived notions of the social justice community.
                     The social justice community is born out of an overwhelming acknowledgement of the institutional biases minorities of all kinds face in society. Simply put, a bunch of academics decided to do research on typically ignored groups of people and realized, "wow these people are actually treated in a pretty negative manner in a whole host of ways." Once that realization was widely accepted, people took it to as an ideological lens, where one asked "how is the world I live in centered or favored on privileged identities." Unsurprisingly people realized quite a lot of what seemed to be "normal" actually subtly affirmed agent identities, while demeaning minorities. Once you come to the realization that you are in the wrong, then you must decide to what degree do you actually care? Some people shrugged their shoulders and said," tough luck," while others felt something needed to be done about it. While those who actually cared about their transgressions tried to find a way to "fix" the negative environment they were propagating, it became apparent that these issues were not simple, but complex. So academics, writers, and intelligent people alike came together to try to unpack these negative instances, how they occurred, and what would be a suitable substitute to them. It's from this ongoing inquiry that the heart of the social justice community can be found. The oft "complicated lingo" is portrayed as such simply because it requires someone to abandon what they are already comfortable with. The very pushback given to this vis-a-vis "political correctness" is the very qualifier for the language policing to begin with. Also, language policing is a bit extreme. Often the social justice community encourages dialogue and mutual understanding. When that's not possible, the response is not one of censorship, but instead of refusal to acknowledge. Why should I give credence to your awful language when I have a suitable alternative you refuse to use? I will reject your use of language and stand by the targeted identity.
             The irony in all of this is that the one party that seems to have very little say is the minority themselves. Of course the inquiry process theoretically should be rooted in minority thought and literature. But a scarcity of minority academics and thought leaders and a mutually exclusive element every true minority struggle has with the institution makes it difficult to take suggestions from the social justice community as gospel. When you have your gay friend shouting faggot or your hispanic friend using the word spic freely, you begin to wonder if all the effort put into precise language is actually a huge farce (it of course isn't for various reasons, the example is just used to serve as the distinction between social justice on a college campus versus how it can play outside the ideal environment). Even I cringe at my students calling the only white student in my class "whiteboy." I always admonish them, but I understand that the term is less of racial prejudice (they honestly love the kid) and more of a candid reaction to an identity they rarely see in person.
      We have a community whose mission is to promote a positive environment for minorities of all kind. The flaw with the community is that some minorities honestly don't give a shit. I guess that's not true. Oppression in some way, shape or form is cared about in the community, but talk about using the word latino versus hispanic falls on deaf ears when rent is due and all you have to eat is rice and eggs. I guess the point is that often what is important to the social justice community and what is important to the minority community is not always the same, nor should it be. There are somethings that can only be achieved amongst people within the particular minority group. These cultural shifts and changes within the identity should not be shaped by people outside the community and therefore excludes a chunk of the social justice community. Now one might say that this exclusion does not imply that the community is mutually exclusive. One can tacitly support minority self determination from afar. But what happens when minority self determination comes at another groups detriment? The assumption that women being paid more won't be at the detriment to men is nonsense (in a monetary sense). I guess what I'm displaying here is an inherent distrust of the social justice community's focus on what appears to be surface level (language, which honestly does matter, but when stacked up to the Benjamin, falls a little flat) versus the true factors that oppress minorities (money, power, etc.) What if instead of needing outside assistance, a minority group had the influence to change their own fate? Then would the need for a social justice community even be there?
       Another departure is the dubious assumption that minorities are all down with the cause. I may be for latino empowerment and still make black people jokes on my break at work. While, one can argue that repercussions similar to the ones faced by whites should await minorities when they engage in this kind of behavior, one cannot deny that they should be able to choose to engage in this behavior. Just as agent identities carelessly oppressed minorities, sometimes in explicit ways, but also sometimes accidentally (e.g. building brownfields in poor minority communities), minorities should not be expected to act in a manner that will be cognizant of the struggles of anyone else but their own. This bleeds into another discussion of capitalism and our government. Can we truly have a fair society, when the premise of our society is that coalitions should face off against each other. Of course cooperation might typically be the best course of action, but for when attrition is most acceptable, our very way of living affirms such behavior. You cannot expect minority movements to be selfless, their very existence is engulfed in the self. From this comes the often ignored or criticized aspects of minority movements. The formations that caused a stir in white america. Or perhaps the disruption of Bernie Sander's speech, which had many minorities calling for blood, willing to sacrifice one of their own for a white male candidate. Even in the struggle itself we see different factions vying for power. You can act latino, but not too latino, unless you got it that way, then you go Jenny from the block. On the other end you have Latinos who are proud, but want the entire community to be educated and well read, often passing the same racist judgement that had been placed on them when they first stepped into a predominantly white university.
       The social justice community serves a refuge for those in the minority community who haven't picked a side. It's either social justice or dungeons and dragons. Nerd communities have begrudgingly accepted minorities, often in an effort to create a more hierarchical structure for the pinnacle of nerd existence: the white male.  But inherent in the social justice community's reactionary nature is a disconnect from a minority movement. Some things only black people can deal with. Some things only Latinos can deal with. Some things only women can deal with. And so on. Of course intersectionality makes this all complicated, but that's the point. The entire process is too complicated for one to pinpoint a particular fission. It's more like there are hundreds of breaking points and within those breaking points are even more breaking points. To throw your hands in the air and give up navigating them is an unnecessarily defeatist attitude, but to imply navigating them is an easy process is equally foolish. Often when I try to wrap my head around it, I find myself wanting to listen to more people. My own social justice philosophy (a mentor of mine called it a "journey") is developed through the experiences of other people. Often listening to them and relating to them informs what I believe to matter. I find that to be a more candid representation of the community, then an uninformed adherence to a lexicon.  

Pretentious sayings that assholes always misuse or abuse

                    There is nothing I hate more than when I'm having a hearty debate about a topic and someone resorts to an old adage to back up their point. Often they hastily throw in the old adage in a desperate attempt to readjust the debate so that it seems they are holding an impenetrable bastion of intellectual high ground. These adages aren't bad per se. They are just often misused or abused to the point that any meaningful discussion comes to a halt once they rear their cliched heads.


1. There is no such thing as a free lunch:
         I just had to sit through an education lecture where the professor harped on about this principle over and over like an automatic telephone operator. "But Bernie will tax corporations to account for the..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "Studies show that consumer tax could..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "God is literally going to come down and give us the secret to cold fusion" There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course there is always a drawback of some sort and the law of matter exists and yada yada, but if it doesn't directly or indirectly affect me in a meaningful way, then what does this matter. The same idiots harping about free lunches, neglect minimum wage studies that show raising the minimum wage often worked in favor of the economic health in many localities. Who's eating lunch now? The only time it's appropriate to talk about lunches and whether they are free is when someone invites you to a needless event that will most likely be boring and pointless or when someone is actually neglecting the negative externalities of a problem. Otherwise, no lunch for you!


2. Correlation does not mean Causation
       Sure. This is true. But often what many people mean when they use this is more along the lines of: "Since Correlation does not mean causation, I will completely ignore any statistical data you bring to this. There could not possibly be any predictive capability tied to your data. Your information is practically useless." This is the adage of choice for the uninformed, but incredibly willing to debate. Instead of encouraging more exploration, they like to dismiss information without examining what the information might actually bring to light. I once argued with a kid who claimed that a positive correlation between tuition prices and money given to universities overtime did not mean universities received more money over time. I looked at him quizzically because that's exactly what that means. The frustrating part is that the kid believed he was right because his 10th grade chemistry teacher stupidly taught him correlation does not mean causation, but apparently failed to teach him how to interpret graphs.



3. Survival of the fittest
       God these are some of the people I dislike the most. Often the most privileged and obtuse individuals are the ones spouting off this pseudo Darwinian nonsense. I often hope all the errant shrapnel from drive by shootings that are fated to hit someone, finds their way into the skulls of these fools. The ironic part is these are often the people who cry foul at every step and turn in life where things are not going their way. This is the guy who argues with his Professor about the grading policy because he felt his paper was graded "too harshly." These are the people who try to pressure Professors into dropping assignments of the syllabus in the first lecture. The kid in class who would whine and complain about sportsmanship whenever another team uses less than savory methods to get ahead, especially when the complainer himself had just unsuccessfully used those methods.



4. But it's just a theory
     Tagging along with our evolution theme is the ridiculous notion that because something is theoretical it should be completely discounted. The favorite use of this old adage is when someone insists that there is some sort of scientific debate surrounding the theory of evolution. This theory is widely accepted to be true in some way shape or form in the scientific community. You know what theory isn't widely accepted? Creationism.
(note: all "it's just a theory" users should test the theory of gravity, preferably at tall heights, using their own bodies for test subjects)

5. That's just the way the world works (the world isn't fair)
     We've all been guilty of saying this, but what's frustrating is when some smug asshole purses his lips for a sly smile and blurts this saying as if he placed a verbal royal flush into the conversation. Fuck you. The world doesn't have to work any particular way and being too lazy to change it isn't a good excuse for why the world is fucked up. Instead what should be insisted upon is the world being changed in such a manner that we don't accept stupid bullshit.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm just so angry thinking about these five I'll stop here.