Knights of Awakening: Jedi Safe Spaces (Charles McBride)

The video was utter crock shit.
Division creates an us vs them mentality. The idea of this video is that people of his group don't have to accomodate people who disagree with them. Ultimately, we don't have to respect safe spaces, but I personally do.
My views on safe spaces are rather set at this point, after working in assisted living with a small platoon of cranky vets. They joked about their fears and prejudices (old people tend to be super racist, and one of them was Japanese). They're the exact opposite of the stereotypical safe space advocate who tend to decry privelege and expect their lives to be red carpeted.
Personally, I do try to respect and accomodate others. "As far as it is up to you, live at peace with everyone" is my mantra here. If I know someone has a legitimate condition or negative experience with something, I'll try to avoid it. If someone is just being sensitive, I ignore it and let them change. The original concept of safe space really is just common courtesy, but SJW divas go beyond that to extents everyone else thinks laughable.
I treat everyone equally. Marx said "from each according to ability, to each according to need." I apply that to my expectations, if someone grew up in a traphouse, I don't expect a Oxford tinged academic and give them certain leniency. Personally, I don't think people are entitled to anything beyond their personal freedom. I hold myself to a higher standard than everyone else since, like a good Pokemon trainer, I want to be the very best.

Adder wrote:

Connor L. wrote: Listen and think.

Is this the right direction for Jedi to go?

Jedi in the fiction for example don't even have to be human so... I tend to agree. Division creates division. If you don't want to be racist, don't see colour when you look at someone.

Except, that this is equally "racist".

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Adder wrote:

Connor L. wrote: Listen and think.

Is this the right direction for Jedi to go?

Jedi in the fiction for example don't even have to be human so... I tend to agree. Division creates division. If you don't want to be racist, don't see colour when you look at someone.

Except, that this is equally "racist".

Can you clarify that? I define racism as discrimination based on race. Not looking at someones skin colour as a means to reduce the likeleehood of being racist doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

So I scanned over the thread. Understanding the kind of thread a question of this kind produces I expect it will progress faster than I for one can keep up with it anyway, so you'll forgive me if I didn't read everything everybody says. I also suspect that what I am about to address is not much of a center of discussion so far.

Here is the thing about those gatherings and workshops: Sure, they're fun, interesting, sometimes educational to some, the list goes on. What's a typical turn up rate in Jedi gatherings? 100? 300? I'll be generous and give it a thousand. Say a third of that at any given time is engaged in one of ten workshops. That's about an average of 30 people per workshop. I'd expect more something on the order of a dozen when there is only three workshops at a time, but as stated before, we're being generous here - make it 30.
Compare that to an internet audience. Is there any time of the day when TOTJO has a two-digit concurrent visitor count? What about its Facebook site? I see some 650ish people talking about that page right now. And that's just one site! Make a remotely popular article and you'll have not 30 people listening but more like 30 000!
Technology brings us together faster and in greater numbers than any real life congregation could hope to. There are threads on this forum with more views than the count of all Jedi gathering attendees in history combined. The worst thing that can happen to those gatherings is that either they lose the breath of life, to the extent that they had any in the first place, or that a workshop or a lack thereof might "poison" fewer minds than there are fingers on my hand. Call me a millennial hipster, but I don't feel like either is much of a loss, all things considered. The mental battles we fight here have far greater impact on the community as a whole.
And there is another argument from internet in here, too. Consider for a comparison what the worst thing is that could happen to an online community? Well, since everybody is free to create their own place, either to have a safe space of their own, or to escape that very notion, really, the worst thing that can happen to a community is a split, where one part shifts to a place of free discourse while the other fades out into irrelevance.
The information age moved us past the times when we could subdue dissenters and get away with it. Everything that tries to reintroduce that, succeeds only on laughably insignificant scopes. It is no doubt sad that it does at all, but it is also inevitable. It is however not dangerous and to me neither worrysome.

Ah, well, rednecks. What can you do ?? ..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Silas Mercury wrote: Ah, well, rednecks. What can you do ?? ..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

...you rang?

To start, I resent the idea that because something was done a certain way at a certain time in the past that that is inherently better which I feel is implied by McBride's commentary. At the same time, I also believe that just because a way of doings things is old or because something is old doesn't make it bad.

But McBride's commentary doesn't even make an attempt to understand why such a workshop would be considered as necessary and it seems more than a little suspect that as a white man he's proclaiming that there were no problems in the past. Furthermore, because he doesn't understand he has a misconception that a "safe space" is about feelings, about catering to special interests, about division. That's bollocks, a complete and utter reductive conception spoken out of ignorance. But I suppose none of that stuff would be important to someone whose society caters to his every whim, whose history is affirmed in textbooks, whose identity is never questioned, whose safety is not threatened because of who he is as a white man, etc. If his idea of division means that we don't all want to be become white men, or to behave as a white man behaves (even in his "best self" form) then I suppose I would say that there is some division.

About midway through the commentary, McBride says this is a waste of time. He recommends that instead there should be self-defense courses so that people could be physically and mentally prepared to defend themselves and they wouldn't need safe spaces. This is kinda ridiculous if you stop and think for a moment. Is punching my way out of every problem really how I can best represent my Jedi path? Last I checked, people didn't respond well when I took a scorched earth approach to handling aggressive people here at the Temple. People wanted me to talk things out, to educate, and to build empathy. That's what a goddamn safe space is for. I'm not asking anyone to protect my feelings. My feelings get hurt when it rains on days I wanted to spend outside, there's nothing anyone can do about the rain and I am not asking you to fix that.

McBride is yet another whiny member of the old guard who refuses to accept change, refuses to understand anything beyond what he already understands, and thinks the Jedi have lost their way because they no longer cater to his personal view of what Jedi should be. And you know what? I'd love to have some practical workshops like CPR, first aid, search and rescue, survival training, and all that stuff. I really would. I love that stuff because some of it might help and other aspects of it are just fun to know. I live in an urban environment so teaching me to survive in the wilderness isn't exactly speaking to my needs, but I'm not going to gripe and moan about it because I could probably still learn something from it.

I can't take McBride seriously. His opinions are his and he's entitled to them, but they carry no weight with me.

I believe the idea people "should be" something before they can become Jedi is inherently flawed, as is the implied "if I don't need it then no-one should need it", or worse "if I don't want it no-one can have it" egotism. It's very unbecoming of someone who is evidently standing on the platform of being a "seasoned Jedi". One would hope a little compassion would have seeped in over the years he's been practicing; seems like he's still got a long way to go. That's OK.

If you're very secure in yourself, confident enough (which may not be very confident) and ready for it, a self defence course makes a lot of sense. If you're not, but you believe in the Force and the Jedi project, probably not. Better to secure the foundation, sort out the plumbing and fit the lighting than start with the turrets.

Getting a lot of this "old Jedi were better Jedi" vibe Jamie describes. That's an attitude I have yet to see evidence of, once, in three years. This rant, deemed so worthy it's been recorded and shared for posterity, is another example of the scale tipping the other way.

To Charles: look deeper.

Silas Mercury wrote: Ah, well, rednecks. What can you do ?? ..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If this were a redneck problem it probably wouldn't be a problem or at least it wouldn't be as a big of problem. While there may be problems of ignorance and foolishness among working class whites, it's a little more than reductive to simply write off ignorance as a redneck problem.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: Ah, well, rednecks. What can you do ?? ..... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If this were a redneck problem it probably wouldn't be a problem or at least it wouldn't be as a big of problem. While there may be problems of ignorance and foolishness among working class whites, it's a little more than reductive to simply write off ignorance as a redneck problem.

I'm not so willing to write off the "what can you do?" part, either.

Atticus wrote: I'm not so willing to write off the "what can you do?" part, either.

That's just it though, I'm saying there is something that can be done, but it won't be accomplished if we just assume it's the goshdarn rednecks who are making us all look back.

Ignorance has no socioeconomic class, look at our politicians. All of them are fairly wealthy people and still manage to spout ignorant garbage.

To the question, "What can you do?" I say we need to educate, relentlessly continue to push forward in the face of ignorance and foolishness. We develop empathy, understanding, and compassion. We extend a hand, open our arms wide.

Listened to the video and well, Charles has, and always will be Charles.

What I am more interested in is the level of heat( I might even say anger), dismissal, and the type of critique that has followed.

Especially given that while others have had people post for them, Connor took it upon himself to post this here, and the creator of the video cannot defend himself. Which, I suppose if you were only talking about the subjects of the video, would be fine.

I only say that given the level of venom in the responses, I think it more important to look at the nerve it touched.

Especially when you talk about the importance of "safe places" and "privilege", while not providing one, and showing that TotJo has its level of privilege among its members.

I mean really, reference to rednecks? Come now, this is hardly mature.

Perhaps its best to look as to why it makes you so angry, because I cannot see anything to be angry about in an opinion that it seems collectively almost you see no value in.

That which I consider nonsense does not usually inspire such ire in me.

Things only bother me, if there is indeed something to be bothered about.

Now, I could project it back on the source of it, easy enough, but then I am simply denying the opportunity to understand why I reacted in such a way.

Khaos wrote:
That which I consider nonsense does not usually inspire such ire in me.

Things only bother me, if there is indeed something to be bothered about.

Now, I could project it back on the source of it, easy enough, but then I am simply denying the opportunity to understand why I reacted in such a way.

Ah, yes, I've been thinking about this since I first posted my reaction. Is it accurate to say I give no weight to what McBride says if I took the time to write a three and a half paragraph response? Yeah, it bothers me as many opinions I strongly disagree with do, but McBride isn't the sole problem. He's merely the focal point for which I can address my response to an opinion I've heard voiced more than once.

So I guess it's not true that I don't give any weight to McBride. I clearly care a great deal about the issue of safe spaces and what McBride articulated a viewpoint I strongly disagree with.

"Safe spaces" may very well be the greatest danger to its continued evolution humanity has ever faced.

Can you clarify that? I define racism as discrimination based on race. Not looking at someones skin colour as a means to reduce the likeleehood of being racist doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

TheDude wrote:

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

ren wrote: "Safe spaces" may very well be the greatest danger to its continued evolution humanity has ever faced.

Can you clarify that? I define racism as discrimination based on race. Not looking at someones skin colour as a means to reduce the likeleehood of being racist doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

Practice makes perfect

When meeting something/someone different or new, its like a negotiation to determine what is and what is not the best manner to communicate and relate.... because what makes it different would usually imply that its less-familiar (and obviously new is completely unfamiliar) and so to make it easy - don't see skin colour! Instead look and listen to how the person 'wants' to be related with, see people for how they choose to be seen, for how they choose to interact, for how they choose to represent themselves for example. If they want to use their culture, race etc then great, if not then great. I think the problem is people are quick to use stereotypes based on shallow interpretations such as skin colour, instead of having a better more accurate 1 on 1 interaction. I cannot see how that is racist. It is though reducing the importance of race in the defining someones identity, but as mentioned unless they themselves make effort to embrace it and therefore it becomes an opportunity, something to discover about the person. It is in fact, the opposite of ignoring someone IMO. It is about wanting to see the persons spirit more then the body of the person.

TheDude wrote:

ren wrote: It sounds to me like an attempt to not get caught rather than lack of racism. Blind people don't appreciate all colours equally, they do not appreciate any of them at all.

I'm not sure I follow. If I reject the notion that there is race (as these scientists do) , how can I possibly be racist? Could you elaborate?

In doing so, you are rejecting the notion that people are different from you.

I actually find science to be a bit racist when it comes to humans. Biologists do not seem to have a problem calling marginally different animals different species, but humans? No we're all the same. Except we're not, and ignoring that fact is harmful to our health. As "race" isn't formally defined and corresponds to categorisations below sub-species, it makes absolutely no sense to avoid it or redefine it for humans.

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

Race exists in DNA. The cultural race thing is a load of nonsense. The nazis did it with the jews and the SJWs do it with everyone. Bunch of fucking arseholes, the lot of them.

Cultures are cultures, they are not owned and certainly not on the basis of people's physical characteristics. Most importantly, people with certain physical characteristics are not responsible for any particular cultures. nuff said

ren wrote:

From what I've heard from POC, ignoring their race is invalidating their culture/experience, be they good or bad. They wish their race be acknowledged, not ignored or persecuted.

Although race doesn't exist in DNA, it still exists in culture and cultural experience.

Race exists in DNA. The cultural race thing is a load of nonsense. The nazis did it with the jews and the SJWs do it with everyone. Bunch of fucking arseholes, the lot of them.

Cultures are cultures, they are not owned and certainly not on the basis of people's physical characteristics. Most importantly, people with certain physical characteristics are not responsible for any particular cultures. nuff said

No no, not "nuff said." Are you denying that race-based culture exists? And just because the Nazis were obsessed with race to a degree where they believed that one race (and really, only particular characteristics within one race) was superior to the others, that doesn't mean that every who acknowledges race is a Nazi..or a SJW.

And no, race doesn't *automatically* define one's culture. But for many, it does. Why do you think so many immigrants tend to live together in the same neighbourhoods? Because it gives them comfort to be close to those of the same culture (and, depending on the culture, race) as they themselves are part of.

Acknowledging difference in race/culture only means racism if we choose to be divisive rather than inclusive.

ren wrote: In doing so, you are rejecting the notion that people are different from you.

I actually find science to be a bit racist when it comes to humans. Biologists do not seem to have a problem calling marginally different animals different species, but humans? No we're all the same. Except we're not, and ignoring that fact is harmful to our health. As "race" isn't formally defined and corresponds to categorisations below sub-species, it makes absolutely no sense to avoid it or redefine it for humans.

I also find the humanocentrism in science (and most philosophy, for that matter) unbecoming. But I wouldn't consider Advaita Vedanta folks over in India to be racists, and they reject the notion that anything is different from anything else, which would necessarily include people. Actually, I find the idea of substance monism to be not only in line with the Force, but also an extremely viable logical conclusion (through Spinoza’s ontological argument for the existence of substance). I don't see how rejecting the idea that there is anything to discriminate against is a discriminatory idea, I think it's the exact opposite.