Well, it seems we've reached the broken record point at which this discussion isn't going to progress any farther.

First: WRONG! The UBristol event organizers haven't caved to pressure - the Milo Y debate is still on as planned as of this post.

What of Milo's motives, beliefs, or any of that matters here?

This is honestly the only criticism of this episode in this thread that I have said "you know, there is a good point here".

As is extending said platform and then retroactively denying it under pressure akin to censorship. AFAIK, Bristol hasn't caved…yet.

Uh, OK? Positing that what I've responded is of "trivial concern" is the best you got?

Whatever you think about Milo Yiannopolous' or his motives is completely irrelevant, and misses the point entirely.

So, what are you saying - by South Park making fun of "safe space," and turning it into a punchline, this is letting the assholes who ruined the concept win? Not quite sure I'm following you here.

Yeah, Milo writes in a way to get a rise out of people. I don't always agree with him, but the dismissal of him as a "professional troll" is lazy. Still though, Milo or not doesn't change a damn thing about what I'm saying, and the attempt to dismiss my point by calling out my mention of him is a red herring. Imagine…

Oh for Pete's sake, man. Google, use it.

And I'd say you're wrong in this assessment. The original "motte" concept of a safe space, the uncontroversial original definition of creating a welcoming environment for abuse victims, has been roundly defiled and turned into the "bailey" variety where coddled folks demand a shield from any and all negativity, by…

You're kind of playing motte and bailey games with the term "safe space" as it pertains to its actual use in the world here.