Safe spaces for everyone?

[Patine]

In a world where breathing is no longer safe, drinking the water is no longer safe, walking down a street in broad daylight in a "nice suburb" is no longer safe, and sitting in your living room in a gated community safe is no longer safe, what safety are people REALLY expecting, regardless of ideology, these days?

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, so how do you distinguish between the two groups? It seems as though they say the same things and profess to hold the same views, only for the "moderates" you somehow know that they're lying? How? What do they actually want then?

My whole point is that one of these groups professes things, is politically active, and has self-conscious political views, and the other is 'moderate' by virtue of apathy and non-participation in politics. The word 'moderate' can be used to describe them both but other than that they are really not similar at all.

 

[Perfection]

In safe space nobody can hear you scheme

 

[Broken_Erika]

The best safe space is a padded cell.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My whole point is that one of these groups professes things, is politically active, and has self-conscious political views, and the other is 'moderate' by virtue of apathy and non-participation in politics. The word 'moderate' can be used to describe them both but other than that they are really not similar at all.

Okay. I'll happily grant that it isn't really useful to categorise people who take no interest in politics as "moderate". But does that mean that anyone who does take an interest in politics, but doesn't gravitate to any extreme position, is a moderate? And is that inherently bad for some reason?

 

[caketastydelish]

Nope, self-professed moderates are a different breed. You can find them here and anywhere else.

The moderators here on CFC are not that bad.

 

[Yeekim]

Chalking any irreconcilable ethical or political difference up to the other party being insane is also a hallmark of totalitarian thinking.

I'm not saying everyone who does not come around is crazy, but that the crazier someone is, the less likely they are to come around.
Not so subtle a difference, actually.

I really don't see how that's the point?

Valessa and aelf both described accurately at least part (however small or large) of their respective target group. So their respective comparisons were comparable in that regard,
Your arachnid comparison didn't and therefore wasn't. A key difference in substance, not merely form.

 

[Hygro]

Unless it's subtly parody, I don't really see how the first sentence and the second can work together...

Try reading the whole post?

It would make sense that to have the certainty to act you would want your beliefs and worldview socially reinforced. It is also true that crowd wisdom depends on diversity of perspective. Perhaps a wide scope of echo chambers or safe spaces harboring different viewpoints and understandings of reality is optimal.

 

[Akka]

Try reading the whole post?

Already did it the first time, and I still don't see how a bunch of safe spaces makes for a diversity of perspectives. It makes for, as you said, echo chambers, with people convinced that they are in the right and all others are evil idiots who should be suppressed. It's not a public discourse on what to do, it's a hotbed for extremists of all kind.

 

[Yeekim]

Already did it the first time, and I still don't see how a bunch of safe spaces makes for a diversity of perspectives. It makes for, as you said, echo chambers, with people convinced that they are in the right and all others are evil idiots who should be suppressed. It's not a public discourse on what to do, it's a hotbed for extremists of all kind.

The "safe spaces" provide people with courage to express their ideas and act upon them, thereby creating diversity of perspective to fuel wider social debate.
Actual results depend heavily on setup, I guess.

 

[Hygro]

The subject here is finding an optimal point for people living their lives and a diversity of perspectives that maximizes potential crowd wisdom. If everyone believes the same thing we can have a very harmonious, high-action society until it goes off the rails. If everyone believes really different stuff we're stuck between not listening to each other, with our different motivations causing us to butt heads, or spending our time considering everything instead of doing things.

Could then a diversity of echo chambers provide the synthesis that allows society as a whole to have varied perspectives while still providing individuals the room they feel they need to go out and be a person.

 

[Lexicus]

Hygro has really done nothing but describe how all human society operates, in fact rather than in theory. And I think it's insightful, to be clear.

 

[aelf]

Okay, so how do you distinguish between the two groups?

One group makes a big show of being moderate and reasonable.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not saying everyone who does not come around is crazy, but that the crazier someone is, the less likely they are to come around.
Not so subtle a difference, actually.

The context did not suggest a narrow or precise use of "crazy".

Valessa and aelf both described accurately at least part (however small or large) of their respective target group. So their respective comparisons were comparable in that regard,
Your arachnid comparison didn't and therefore wasn't. A key difference in substance, not merely form.

Valessa is arguing from form, though, that the offensiveness of a statement is a function of its grammatical structure, rather than whether or not it is true. The implication may have been that Aelf's generalisation was unreasonable or slanderous, but she didn't succeed or even really try to demonstrate that, she only demonstrated that it was a generaliastion.

 

[Ryika]

Valessa is arguing from form, though, that the offensiveness of a statement is a function of its grammatical structure, rather than whether or not it is true. The implication may have been that Aelf's generalisation was unreasonable or slanderous, but she didn't succeed or even really try to demonstrate that, she only demonstrated that it was a generaliastion.

You want me to demonstrate that not all moderates are hyporcrites who want to shut down debates?

 

[aelf]

You have yet to demonstrate that all media love(d) the Antifa.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

One group makes a big show of being moderate and reasonable.

Is that really the defining difference? Because to me that wouldn't really matter if they were actually doing it. The defining difference seems to actually be that you don't think they are being moderate and reasonable, so what do they do or say that makes you think that?

I realise that this looks like I'm being my usual pedantic self, but I'm genuinely curious because all I've ever seen in these discussions are assertions that "moderates" are not actually moderate and are dangerous or disruptive somehow, but no actual descriptions (or examples) of how and why.

 

[Lexicus]

I realise that this looks like I'm being my usual pedantic self, but I'm genuinely curious because all I've ever seen in these discussions are assertions that "moderates" are not actually moderate and are dangerous or disruptive somehow, but no actual descriptions (or examples) of how and why.

Okay, here's a concrete example.
https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/838175302505263105?lang=en Here is Sam Harris declaring that he is a "moderate", denouncing "both ends of the political spectrum." Now, understand that Harris' writing lends credence to a variety of nutty far-right concepts such as a Muslim invasion (or "Muslimization") of Europe, there is an article on his website entitled "in defense of torture," and has written extensively in support of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The problem occurs when Rational Human Being = myself.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Safe Space.