Oh, you know what I’m talking about.
That special list of things we aren’t allowed to talk about.
To be fair though, it’s not written down.
….and everyone has a different version.
How ridiculous do the above sound? Society has formed up the idea that we can create protective barriers that prevent the entry of certain thoughts into our brains.
I like tech, but I’ve never heard of that kind of tech. Lucky for us, it’s actually a lot simpler than that. Nowadays there is a concept that is being tried out called: Safe spaces.
These are designated zones where you are en-forcibly prohibited from discussing certain topics which might upset other people within this zone. While you might at first think that perhaps the list of topics is reasonable, it’s very quickly discovered that the list is a lot longer and a lot sillier as you get closer to the recent additions.
To be fair, however, I have no problem with someone setting up one of these “Safe Spaces” within their privately owned premises; I do however have a big problem when it’s on public land though.
Let’s be very clear; the concept of a safe space is, in fact, a violation of human rights if one is set up on public land. Why?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Yes… I know… there are limitations to the above and they do vary depending on the country in questions, but some of these limitations (such as the below) only come into question if someone else’s rights are infringed upon through the exercising of free speech.
The reasons particularly include libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, intellectual property and fighting words( yes that’s a thing ). Fighting words (no matter how many times you repeat this in your head, it doesn’t sound serious. It’s actually very serious though), fighting words are as defined by a quick google search as :
nouninformalplural noun: fighting words; noun: fighting talk
- 1.words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge a person or thing.
- 2.USinsulting or provocative words, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature, considered unacceptable or illegal by certain institutions and afforded less protection than free speech.
Any sane person, cannot find fault with agreeing to therefore not use what are considered as fighting words.
The only problem is many feel that; if a problem does not relate to you in any way, then you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss it, otherwise, it could be considered as “fighting talk” or offensive. Can we take a second to understand how insane that statement is?
If an individual wants to talk about a social issue, let them. Progress is driven by the ability to dialogue and communicate; leading to an understanding.
A great example of this would be technological research.
With the constantly improving ease of the sharing of information, researchers are able to share their success and drive even greater leaps. This was achievable because of the ability to share different perspectives until a solution presented itself.
The fact is that we are constantly improving the face of technology, but are shackling ourselves with a false construct that is ludicrous. That the smallest dislike, towards of a form of communicating even a simple idea can be shut down; with the quick and righteous labelling as hate speech.
This is, in fact, a warning light, that says that society is moving off the smooth path of development and into the dangerous zone of a negative societal upheaval.
And we need to stop it, quickly.