At this point, I realize you&#x27;re trolling, but in the interest of anyone else reading I feel it&#x27;s appropriate to reply.  I&#x27;m someone who pretty universally supports the rights of others to be themselves, however that might be, and be treated with respect as a human being.<p>That said, the term &quot;safe space&quot; is something I&#x27;ve never personally encountered being used in the context you present it in.  When a group of like-minded people come together in a private space, they don&#x27;t then declare &quot;This place is a safe space for $x people&quot;.  It&#x27;s obvious that everyone present is of like-mind, and those who are there for purposes other than discussion of the topic at hand can be expelled through social means as a consensus action of the group without any need for authority involvement.<p>Meanwhile, I often hear the term &quot;safe space&quot; used by people when they want to take over a shared space to insulate themselves from people who might disagree with them or maybe even be bigots towards them, while in public.  I am not in any way arguing that bigotry is socially acceptable, but it is protected speech, and while it is perfectly appropriate to tell people that their bigotry is offensive, inappropriate, and unwelcome, it&#x27;s not appropriate to ask that an authority come in and forcibly establish a zone <i>in a shared space</i> where-in some speech is okay and other speech is not.<p>My opinion, which I think is largely in-line with the person you replied to, is not one born out of hatred or bigotry, it&#x27;s born out of concern about the death of dissent.  It&#x27;s a concern that our culture is shifting to one where everyone lives in an echo chamber and is intolerant of any ideas not of their own making.  It is perfectly acceptable as a society to be intolerant of intolerance, and that includes both intolerance based in bigotry as well as intolerance based in delusion.  This is not an argument in favor of people &quot;just taking it&quot; when others behave in inappropriate ways towards them, but it is a plea for reason around dissent. Respectful disagreement is not offensive or inappropriate, even though some people may use disrespectful terms in their dissent which themselves are offensive or inappropriate, that does not mean that all people who disagree are inherently offensive.  It is not oppression to disagree with someone, it is oppression to prevent dissenting opinions.<p>Given that so much of the influence and respect people in the public eye have these days is based on the appearance that they&#x27;re socially&#x2F;politically appropriate, it&#x27;s very clear how claims of victimhood can be used to intimidate.  In some cases, I don&#x27;t have much sympathy for those who have come under fire since they are in a position to clearly state their position and walk away relatively unscathed, but some people unfortunately are not in that situation.  Take for instance, the two Yale professors who clearly argued for school administrators to allow students to define their own standards and for students to have a discussion, instead were reviled unfairly by some students who instead want administrators to use their authority to impose speech controls.  Unfortunately, those Yale professors have less influence with which to save themselves than the administrators who more often come under fire.<p>Perhaps the most confusing thing to me about this whole situation is that in most cases the people calling for &quot;safe spaces&quot; are people who are part of marginalized groups or are saying that they act on behalf of marginalized groups.  The social concepts surrounding free association, free speech, and dissent are there to protect marginalized groups.  It allows them to exist, gather, and discuss their ideas, thoughts, experiences, and feelings and to publicly disagree with people who are in the majority groups and be protected from the oppression of being silenced by authority while doing so.  It seems strange to me that the people claiming to be proponents of marginalized groups would want to take away these protections from anyone.<p>I could write more, but I don&#x27;t think it would lend anything else to the point I&#x27;m trying to make.  If anyone reading this is unable to understand the difference between free association of like-minded people in private spaces vs trying to enforce speech controls on everyone, including those who may not be like-minded, in a shared space, and why the latter might be concerning to many for reasons that do not originate from any personal hatred or bigotry, I will attempt to clarify further.  Otherwise, I hope the above is well-stated enough to put forward that position.