As discussed in "The Dystopian Infantilization of America's Youth (Part 1)", the safe space declarations of inclusivity, diversity etc., contradict the very meaning of the words used to describe them. And this is where the dystopian emphasis of this contribution comes in.

A Disturbingly Familiar Dystopia or 'Hello, George!'

The ability to reconcile this contradiction on the part of safe space advocates is, in a strict Orwellian sense, a form of doublethink. As such, safe spaces can be considered the manifestation of a dystopian mindset where exclusion of the other - specifically the exclusion of those with whom reconciliation, tolerance and an open exchange of ideas must be practiced in order to achieve the professed goals of safe spaces - is embraced as a step towards achieving the goals of diversity, inclusion etc. Tellingly, this modern and very real form of doublethink is a perfect parallel to how doublethink was defined by George Orwell in his seminal novel 1984. To highlight this, it is worth taking a closer look at doublethink, here straight from the book:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink. Orwell

And again:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.Orwell

In reading these quotes it is impossible to oversee the direct and startling parallels between the rationalization of safe space ideology and doublethink as described by George Orwell. The advocates of safe spaces appear to genuinely believe they are promoting diversity, inclusivity etc. because they say so, not because of what they actually do. They are claiming to practice a greater degree of morality while practicing exactly that which they denounce in the "intolerant majority" - namely marginalizing others. Literally every line of these passages on doublespeak looks like it could have been custom written for the social justice movement, of which safe spaces are just a constituent part. I believe the further corresponding aspects of safe space ideology and doublethink do not need to be further elaborated upon once the preceding quotes have been digested. Needless to say, this is extremely troubling for the what it suggests about the ideology of intolerance being propagated on college campuses today.

Learned Emotional Helplessness & Promoting Victimhood

Constant repetition is one of the key elements in manipulating people to believe whatever you want them to. This principle is perhaps best known under the maxim "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth" or one of the many other "big lie" variants. This is not to say that social justice movement advocates are lying, because they live in a world where subjective truths trump objective truths, so in their own dialectic they aren't. They genuinely ascribe to and believe in their ideology as they perceive it; unfortunately this ideology blinds them to the inherent contradiction of employing discriminatory treatment to remedy discriminatory treatment.

In the real world, the social justice movement seeks to provide "compensating" privileges to groups and individuals that feel themselves to be underprivileged, disadvantaged or discriminated against. In some instances this is justifiable, in others this behavior has had and will continue to have (presumably unintended) negative consequences. By establishing a conceptual framework in which people who believe themselves unfairly treated are granted increased social status or economic compensation, those who want more attention (e.g. narcissists, psychopaths, egomaniacs, drama queens etc.) or want to improve their relative position in society (just about everybody) are incentivized to identify themselves as victims, as oppressed, discriminated against or underprivileged, then trumpet their "victimhood" to manipulate the system to their advantage. This is literally breeding a culture of victimhood and outrage, where the greater the level of victimization (based on almost any randomly chosen attribute), the more privileged treatment one is "entitled" to as a compensatory mechanism - and the more outrage and division within society as a whole is manufactured.

This is telling for the role of schools, college and universities in the advancement of the social justice movement. One of the principle concepts employed in any schooling system (note I did not use the term 'education system' in this context) is that of route memorization. Memorization requires constant repetition and naive, poorly prepared students (and having taught at multiple universities I can tell you there are many) largely assume that only things that are "true" (i.e. facts) are taught at institutions of higher educayshun. Thus, the authority of educational institutions has an immense potential for social harm and injustice when they propagate an ideology that provides incentives for people to accept that they are victims of one kind or another and then rewards them for it with exclusive privileges of their own.

In being constantly and repeatedly told by authority figures that because any random group feels it is systematically victimized and cannot effectively stop or avoid the victimization, learned helplessness is a very real danger. Indeed, learned helplessness appears to have already been well established in the social justice movement as is revealed by safe space culture. What is 'learned helplessness'?

Learned helplessness is behavior typical of a human or non-human animal and occurs where an animal endures repeatedly painful or otherwise aversive stimuli which it is unable to escape or avoid. After such experience, the organism often fails to learn or accept "escape" or "avoidance" in new situations where such behavior would likely be effective. In other words, the organism learned that it is helpless in situations where there is a presence of aversive stimuli and has accepted that it has lost control, and thus gives up trying. Such an organism is said to have acquired learned helplessness. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from such real or perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.(emphasis mine)source

The belief in an omnipresent agenda of oppression and victimization by society at large (even if unconsciously executed) that is propagated by the social justice movement entails that it is impossible for individuals to avoid victimization when participating in society. Thus believers in the social justice movement have been conditioned to believe they are helpless in the face of society's structural "mechanisms of oppression". This made the advent of safe spaces inevitable as places where self-described victims can retreat to when they feel they are not in control and have given up trying to cope with adverse circumstances. As such, safe spaces should perhaps be more accurately described as "learned helplessness retreats".

Intellectual Infantilization and Preparing Students for Failure

source

This leads to the final consideration of safe space culture as a form of intellectual infantilization. Infantilism is defined as:

1. the persistence in an adult of markedly childish anatomical, physiological, or psychological characteristics.
2. an infantile act, trait, etc., especially in an adult.
3. a speech disorder characterized by speech and voice patterns that are typical of very young children. source

Without a doubt, safe spaces are necessary for people that are intellectually or emotionally incapable of dealing with diverse opinions or defending themselves against perceived injustice, but private mental illness should not be funded and promoted by institutions that take taxpayer money. The most problematic issue is that generations of American (and increasingly British) youth are being raised to engage in infantile behavior as a reactionary emotional compensation for any perceived offense or setback in life. I cannot think of any way to describe the actions and reactions of safe space participants other than infantile. Absurdly, infantilizing "toddler therapy" has become openly embraced as a coping mechanism for (physically) fully grown adults (and no, that is not a joke), this is only a partial list from "Coddling Campus Crybabies - the video on this page is worth viewing.:

Cornell University recently hosted a “cry-in,” complete with hot chocolate and tissues for disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters.

University of Pennsylvania brought in a puppy and a kitten for therapeutic cuddling.

Tufts University held arts and crafts sessions for students.

University of Michigan Law School scheduled an event for this Friday called “Post-Election Self-Care With Food and Play” with “stress-busting self-care activities” including coloring, blowing bubbles, sculpting with Play-Doh and “positive card making.”

Additional examples of this rampant infantilization of young adults has been discussed in the widely read and well-received NYT article by Judith Shulevitz "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas". Schulevitz's treatment is very much worth reading.

The intellectual infantilization and emotional coddling on college and university campuses is setting students up for failure in the real world. That the educational establishment support this movement is nothing less than a complete abandonment of their responsibility as educators to prepare coming generations for success outside of their "educational" environment. I am hard pressed not to consider it some form of emotional or mental abuse as well.

When I view the behavior of many social justice warriors (by no means all) when they actually do confront their "triggers", it is exceptionally difficult to accept that they are rational, reasonable adults. Rational adults do not scream, throw rage tantrums or engage in profanity labeled hate speech while claiming they are loving, tolerant and just. Naturally, not all SJWs behave in this manner, but it does appear to be condoned behavior by the movement as a whole. Examples of such infantile behavior are too numerous to list in their entirety, but there are a few compilations worth referencing (note these are edited to be humorous to non SJWs) compiled by on the 50 Shades YT channel, here only the first:

SJW Freakout Compilation 1

I think these videos are somewhere between hilarious and horrifying, but definitely tend more towards horrifying, and they make my point more eloquently than words possibly can. Is any of that behavior respectful, conducive to reasonable dialogue or rational in any way? All of the behavior demonstrated by these social justice advocates is infantile, authoritarian virtue signaling not worthy of a mature, adult person who supposedly advocates civil society or is ready to take their place in it.

Closing the Door on Safe Spaces

In closing, the safe space derangement is a pox on the body politic and society as a whole and should be expunged from the educational environment immediately. The ideology supporting their existence is riddled with doublethink, promotes segregation, social strife, racism, sexism and gender discrimination and they are so blind they just don't see it. The inability to see it is part and parcel of the learned helplessness and the perpetuation of a victim mindset that will never enable them to become empowered, confident human beings.

The necessity of safe spaces is a mental health issue and as such should be reserved for psychologists and psychiatrists. Academics and administrators who run or supervise them should be liable for the educational equivalent of malpractice and abuse of authority. Administrators who channel taxpayer dollars to support learned helplessness should be personally liable for the misuse of public funds. Taxpayer funds should not go to schools or universities that support the politics of segregation and discrimination.

Fortunately, as I detailed in my earlier post The Social Justice Movement is Its Own Worst Enemy, it appears the social justice movement and the inept misanthropic ideology supporting it imploding. Until that happens, parents must carefully choose where they send their children to be educated or they risk setting their children on a path to intellectual and emotional failure. Parents must become more involved in the primary and secondary schools by taking part in the PTA and actively shaping the learning environment of their children. It is precisely the delegating of authority by parents to left-wing radicals not just to educate their children, but to socialize them as well, that has let this monstrous ideology of victimhood become a social movement in its own right.