Bret StephensVerified account

You know what? We disagree on politics but your speech was spot on. If I may, although I am not famous nor a writer, I think I can explain

Problem: you used the same term for the physical "and your...Ahem...Blessed" example of a safe space for the potentially triggering speech

But then you proceed to point out the damage that "safe spaces" can do to the free exchange of ideas and discourse in society. The issue was

Not changing the name of the more extreme version of your meaning. Your speech in context set up the clarification in subsequent paragraphs

But your very first definition of a safe space was the Brown one so that's the picture that readers/viewers had in their head, like it

Or not, throughout. And so it sounded like you were saying "hey don't stay in there too long, potentially triggered," it'll mess you up"

Suggestion: change your definition of the extreme version to "safe bubble" once your "safe space" becomes physically/virtually mobile, it's

A problem. So "safe bubbles" are bad and protect but also protect some from challenging their own ideas. Or you can use the original way we

You are consistently the worst take in a volcano of hot takes

You are never accidentally mediocre or intellectually threadbare by chance.

Your lazy and impoverished ideas are always perfectly attuned to your writing. Your form is always in perfect harmony with function.

I agree with the premise of your speech, but even to me the time devoted to the safe space sounds like a clear intent to ridicule.

Your rebuttal is largely convincing. If it's intellectual safe spaces you're critiquing, though, then why mention details of physical ones?

I think he believes that many of these safe spaces which pretend to be for the health of students are just meant to silence dissent

So in most cases, physical/intellectual safe spaces can't really be distinguished. Take the Brown example he mentioned, for instance.