I&#x27;ll reply to this, but no further.<p>Bigotry is a belief structure.  Discrimination and harassment are actions, which may or may not be based in bigotry.  I am in no way advocating that it is okay to discriminate against or harass people based on their identity.  Speech can be an action, but it can also just be speech.  It&#x27;s not a simple line, but I think it&#x27;s well defined in the law and well understood in society the difference between a statement of opinion, which may or may not be bigoted, and harassment.<p>Also, I&#x27;d like to point out that you&#x27;re awfully focused on my statements around bigotry.  Bigotry is a consequence of humanity, but it&#x27;s also something that can be changed through education and discussion.  The very reason why it&#x27;s important to protect <i>dissenting speech</i>, is because it&#x27;s a protection for society against bigotry.  The movement that&#x27;s currently happening around &quot;safe spaces&quot; is not merely a reaction to bigotry, it&#x27;s also a reaction to dissenting opinions, ignoring the latter for the former because the former makes an easy target to argue against due to its inappropriateness and unpopularity does not change the facts of the matter.<p>I think part of our misunderstanding is that we disagree on what is entailed in a &quot;discussion&quot; and what is entailed in the term &quot;safe space&quot;.  To me, a discussion must have, among other things, diversity of thought or position.  This implies that there will be dissent.  In the usage of the term &quot;safe space&quot; that I&#x27;ve experienced, dissent was not allowed, in fact it was in some cases violently rejected.  If there is no room for dissent, then what exists within is not a discussion, it&#x27;s a group affirmation.  You do not walk away from a group affirmation having learned anything, although it might make you feel better about yourself.  A discussion provides the possibility of learning something, gaining awareness of other viewpoints, understanding of someone who is different than you, and perhaps the possibility of convincing someone else to change their viewpoint to share yours.<p>On a university campus in a shared space, I&#x27;d very much hope that any discussion that occurs about any topic, but especially topics of politics and social mores has room for dissent.  For instance, I&#x27;d hope that my dissenting opinion regarding the existence or establishment of &quot;safe spaces&quot; would be welcome, if not applauded in a discussion about identity politics on a university campus.  At the same time, if I were on said campus and I heard someone expressing a grossly bigoted opinion, such as something which is blatantly racist or sexist, I would confront them and provide them my dissenting viewpoint to their bigotry and hope that it were welcomed, if not embraced by the person who I was having the disagreement with.  University life is supposed to be about having your viewpoints that you grew up with challenged, meeting new people who are different than you, finding out about the vast diversity of opinions and thought that exists in the world, and opening your mind to the possibilities that life holds.  When we use social means to censure people and demand the cessation of dissent in the name of not causing offense, we trade away the possibility of teaching students about the vast possibilities of the world in favor of not rocking the boat.