[RD] Diversity of Safe Spaces

[cardgame]

Uh that really doesn't sound like it's a thing to be honest.

the_donald subreddit explicitly advertises that it will ban you from participating in the sub if you post any dissent, and they interpret that extremely broadly.

ADH, are you aware of the history of "safe space"?

 

[Hygro]

My little bro spent the election lurking conservative forums. I've spent some time lurking reactionary dens. We both agree, conservative and reactionary forums tend to enforce "safe space" policies harder than anywhere else while simultaneously decrying the concept.

 

[danjuno]

I perused /pol/ before and after the election. I wouldn't say moderators engage in safe-space enforcement, but the natives do go to great lengths to make it clear that dissenting opinions are not tolerated. Civil discourse is a rare commodity, even between members of the white-nationalist cult.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I perused /pol/ before and after the election. I wouldn't say moderators engage in safe-space enforcement, but the natives do go to great lengths to make it clear that dissenting opinions are not tolerated. Civil discourse is a rare commodity, even between members of the white-nationalist cult.

I can't believe you're actually discussing (that site) like it's even supposed to be some forum of civil discourse. It's a godawful pit, and has been since its inception. People go there expressly to say inflammatory, perverted and douchebaggy things. You're like a political scientist trying to study a bird turd.

That's. what. it. is.

I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

The Hurr Durr media says, "/pol/ is a haven for racists and haters".

No it's not, Hurr Durr media, it's a place for dopes to blow off steam.

 

[Kozmos]

/pol might be a hive of scum and villainy but they are entertaining


Link to video.

 

[Traitorfish]

My little bro spent the election lurking conservative forums. I've spent some time lurking reactionary dens. We both agree, conservative and reactionary forums tend to enforce "safe space" policies harder than anywhere else while simultaneously decrying the concept.

Not surprisingly, really, given that these are the same people who proclaim the need for tightened belts while throwing money at missiles and border walls and old ladies with bejeweled hats. "Do as I say, not as I do" may as well be the movement's official motto.

 

[danjuno]

I can't believe you're actually discussing (that site) like it's even supposed to be some forum of civil discourse. It's a godawful pit, and has been since its inception. People go there expressly to say inflammatory, perverted and douchebaggy things. You're like a political scientist trying to study a bird turd.

That's. what. it. is.

I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

The Hurr Durr media says, "/pol/ is a haven for racists and haters".

No it's not, Hurr Durr media, it's a place for dopes to blow off steam.

How do you know who is and isn't being serious on /pol/? Have you even been there before?

 

[MilesGregarius]

A problem with dialogues around [X] is how the easily a speaker may mean one type of [X] and a listener may assume another. This miscommunication leads to confusion and worse. The solution is for the speaker to clearly define [X] in front of any discussion. Or just avoid the confusion all together by avoiding the value-laden term and call it something else.

Doesn't that sum up a good percentage of internet arguments?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

How do you know who is and isn't being serious on /pol/? Have you even been there before?

Of course. I was weaned on electronic communication for my dad's profession. The first words I read of my own capacity was the test pattern off a teletype machine in 1977 (the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog). When I was probably older than you are now I was a regular contributor on somethingawful, years before ***** existed. I know when it was created, I know by whom, I know when /pol/ specifically was added and why, I'm versed in that culture. The way you describe it, I'm convinced you discovered it within the last two years. Chris Poole was half my age at the time he made that website.

You don't know what I know. I, however, am very familiar with everything you've, here, portrayed "knowing".

 

[aelf]

It's funny how discussions of safe space around here always end badly for conservatives and their enablers.

 

[BvBPL]

My only problem with this is that it seems to imply that the listener is aware that 'safe space' has two meanings, and is simply assuming one rather than the other in a specific instance. I think it's more that there's a lack of awareness of the 'place without disrespect' meaning.

Well that's exactly the problem. Speakers assume their audiences are on the same page with them when the term safe space is used. That's a difficult assumption to justify given that safe space can mean at least three different things. Heck, audiences aware of the multiple potential meanings for safe space probably shouldn't assume that speakers themselves are aware of multiple meanings.

In other situations, context can be helpful, but it is less useful in determining what sort of safe space a particular person is talking about. Set has one of the largest numbers of meaning of any word in English, if not the largest, but no one would confuse how one places objects on a table, a collection of games in tennis amid a larger collection in the form of a match, and the pieces of a chess board. The various definitions of set are markedly varied. The alternate definitions of safe space are much less varied because they are all about the manner in which people interact with each other. As such, context is less useful in defining what people are talking about. That robs people of clues that are usually essential to determining what others are referring to.

The result is miscommunication, then confusion. Bad feelings are more than likely as both sides believe they are communicating in a clear manner, and they assume that the inability of the other party to understand is a result of a willful choice. It isn't. "Safe space" is just a really loaded term that means many different things to many different people. People who want to talk about safe spaces need to be cognizant of that fact.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

It's funny how discussions of safe space around here always end badly for conservatives and their enablers.

That's something in your head, and something in the heads of the false accusers.

 

[El_Machinae]

They might literally be ignorant of the fact or in denial, too. The might literally have a Reddit addiction, the source of both "safe space" fandom and mangled concepts.

So? My goal is to communicate. Fighting over a definition is a waste of my time. I'd rather discuss the underlying issue.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

So? My goal is to communicate. Fighting over a definition is a waste of my time. I'd rather discuss the underlying issue.

There are all kinds of causes. I'm concerned about the effect. This type of thing has no business in educational institutions, and little room in public discourse. It's harmful, in the same manner a person might make an argument "creationism" is harmful to the collective human intellect.

 

[warpus]

Cameron Okeke recently pointed out that there are two definitions of safe spaces. One is a place where one could “run away from people’s perspectives” ”

Surely we do not need designated spaces for people who need this kind of thing in their life? Just turn off your phone and hide under your bed.

Unless there's an earthquake in progress, then that is probably not going to be a very safe space.

and the other being “places where people didn’t question who I was.”

That place is Hollywood I think. Or Manhattan? You could be wearing a pancake on your head while riding a unicycle in these places, and nobody would question you.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are all kinds of causes. I'm concerned about the effect. This type of thing has no business in educational institutions, and little room in public discourse. It's harmful, in the same manner a person might make an argument "creationism" is harmful to the collective human intellect.

I view it more akin to how people will conflat sex with gender. A minor correction in terminology while actually addressing the *gist* of their communication seems to be better than merely being abrasive regarding their error. Go with what's effective, rather than wanting to 'win'

 

[Farm Boy]

How do you know who is and isn't being serious on /pol/? Have you even been there before?

He's described it reasonably accurately. And who cares? Visiting there is like taking a swim in the bottom of a port-a-potty, you still come out with more infectious disease than before you went in, even if you're being all like, "I just visit so that I know what **** smells like."

 

[danjuno]

Of course. I was weaned on electronic communication for my dad's profession. The first words I read of my own capacity was the test pattern off a teletype machine in 1977 (the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog). When I was probably older than you are now I was a regular contributor on somethingawful, years before ***** existed. I know when it was created, I know by whom, I know when /pol/ specifically was added and why, I'm versed in that culture. The way you describe it, I'm convinced you discovered it within the last two years. Chris Poole was half my age at the time he made that website.

You don't know what I know. I, however, am very familiar with everything you've, here, portrayed "knowing".

So you refuse to acknowledge what it's become in the "last two years"?

He's described it reasonably accurately. And who cares? Visiting there is like taking a swim in the bottom of a port-a-potty, you still come out with more infectious disease than before you went in, even if you're being all like, "I just visit so that I know what **** smells like."

I was replying to Hygro and his talk of conservative forums. I was describing an observation I made of /pol/. Then ADH comes along claiming that not one of the thousands of people who post on there is actually serious in what they say. Extraordinary claims (knowing the thought processes of thousands of people) require extraordinary evidence.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I view it more akin to how people will conflat sex with gender. A minor correction in terminology while actually addressing the *gist* of their communication seems to be better than merely being abrasive regarding their error. Go with what's effective, rather than wanting to 'win'

It's not an error if I walk up to a person, clearly a man, and call him a lady. It might be grounds for the guy using expletives or wanting to punch me, but there's no written or understood obligation to call anyone anything or accept anything. If I want to call a trans person their born pronoun, I have that right and screwing with me about it is infringing on my rights.

This obligation of "pronouns because someone says so" is going too far. It's preposterous. It's a stupid game.

I call grown men "young ladies" when they irk me and I have for years. You want to be treated as an equal, I can do that. I don't "need" to, of course. If I realize it's going to send someone into spasmic fits, I don't "need" to be coarse and probably won't, but forget you for telling me what I can and can't do.

I have absolutely zero problem with doubling, tripling or quadrupling down.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

So you refuse to acknowledge what it's become in the "last two years"?

This question is stupid. It's the same thing it was 3 years ago, or 5 years ago. It's a mix of people being all kinds of everything, some genuine, some not so genuine, some just watching the freak show.