Safe spaces for everyone?

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus Well, I asked because I've only encountered this term in CFC... and based on this exposure I've come to understand it pretty much like Valessa defined it...

Well, that doesn't surprise me since CFC is largely a safe space for abrasive white dudes, and I would guess that most people here don't have much actual exposure to any safe spaces and only know about them due to media coverage.

A proper safe space actually allows people to express themselves more fully. If people don't feel "safe" speaking out then they won't, and one of the things a safe space does is ensure that people feel safe speaking out. Now, I have no doubt that our resident racists and trolls are going to seize on this and say "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF RACISTS, RAPE APOLOGISTS, ETC." Well, allowing views like that to be aired is actually fatal to proper free speech as (for example) black people are not going to feel comfortable expressing themselves or even occupying a space in which allows racism under the guise of 'free speech'. Rape survivors are not going to feel comfortable expressing themselves in a space where people are saying things like "well if girls don't want to be raped they shouldn't x". And so on. Obviously those are generalities and there are exceptions to those rules, but that's generally how things work out. Another related issue is that safe spaces can sort of establish a baseline so that the time set aside for, say, a group's meeting time isn't wasted by having to explaining the same basic points a dozen times in a row, usually to people who have displayed zero motivation to learn about the issue themselves.

As I've noted before I've watched this dynamic play out in any number of online spaces. If an online space doesn't just straight-up forbid expressions of racism, sexism, and so on then people will flock to that space to express that stuff and people directly concerned by the thing eventually tire of being told that constant invalidation of their humanity are just "free speech" and simply leave. I watched it happen on one of the boards I used to go on all the time, it dwindled down from a respectable proportion of female posters (it wasn't anywhere near equal but probably somewhere around 3 out of 10) to 2, to 1, to 0 female posters, because flagrantly sexist nonsense (again, as long as it was "politely expressed") was allowed under the guise of "free speech." Women just got tired of dealing with it and left, and the site suffered for it (it finally died almost two years ago now).

Anyway tl;dr safe spaces are cool, they can be taken too far and not done properly, it's important to know specific contexts before passing judgment on anything, and characterizing them as ideological echo chambers where people go to avoid hearing opposing views is infantile and demonstrates that the person making the characterization has not really made any effort to engage with safe spaces on any level.

 

[Ryika]

So basically, safe spaces are exactly what I described them as.

Not being allowed to say that maybe it is reasonable for women to take certain measures against potential rapists is an example of a "Space where only certain opinions can be uttered", and after all, it does usually not stop at obvious non-arguments such as "She shouldn't wear naughty things!", many people insist that women should just not take any precautions at all, and that we should not discuss what influence the woman's choice to walk home through a dark forest had, and what conclusions we can draw from that because "In a perfect world without rapist this would not happen!" - which is just insane. The many things that are declared to be racist or immoral purely on the subjective standard of a person who takes offense, are another such case.

Cutlass for example recently got angry at me for arguing that restrictions on immigration may be fine in some circumstances, and said that being for unlimited immigration is the only moral choice. Clearly there is no basis of "fact" that makes this claim valid, but I have no doubt that some people who hold that opinion - maybe not him, I don't know him that well - would exclude me from a "safe space" for arguing against unlimited immigration purely on the basis that me making the argument creates an emotional reaction in them that they can't handle.

And those safe spaces have been "taken too far and not done properly" basically boil down to "Spaces where people don't get their opinions challenged". I'm glad you don't agree with those, but that doesn't change that they exist. Just as the fact that you want to base your view of feminism on local movements that are doing great things does not make the huge online feminism hubs that are all about self-pitying middle class professional victims go away.

 

[Lexicus]

Not being allowed to say that maybe it is reasonable for women to take certain measures against potential rapists is an example of a "Space where only certain opinions can be uttered"

And? All spaces are "spaces were only certain opinions can be uttered."

 

[Ryika]

A claim that is clearly unfounded and untrue.

 

[Lexicus]

A claim that is clearly unfounded and untrue.

It's clearly not. If I were to stand up at my job and start asking my black coworkers to prove that they're just as intellectually capable as the white people at the office, I'll simply get fired because the workplace needs to be a "safe space" from that kind of nonsense. In basically every single social situation, there are social consequences that make certain behaviors prohibitively expensive, as it were. They are all de facto "safe spaces" from those behaviors.

 

[bernie14]

It's clearly not. If I were to stand up at my job and start asking my black coworkers to prove that they're just as intellectually capable as the white people at the office, I'll simply get fired because the workplace needs to be a "safe space" from that kind of nonsense. In basically every single social situation, there are social consequences that make certain behaviors prohibitively expensive, as it were. They are all de facto "safe spaces" from those behaviors.

Seems you have already proven intellectual superiority since you can complete your work in half the time, spending the other half posting on CFC

 

[Ryika]

It's clearly not. If I were to stand up at my job and start asking my black coworkers to prove that they're just as intellectually capable as the white people at the office, I'll simply get fired because the workplace needs to be a "safe space" from that kind of nonsense. In basically every single social situation, there are social consequences that make certain behaviors prohibitively expensive, as it were. They are all de facto "safe spaces" from those behaviors.

Your claim was that ALL spaces are "spaces were only certain opinions can be uttered", not that there are "some other places where only certain opinions can be uttered". You have also not given an example of a person uttering an opinion, you've given an example of a situation where you're harassing a black coworker with requests to prove themselves as an individual. An actual example of a person stating a controversial opinion would be if there had been a conversation about race realism and you just disagreed with the general consensus and said that you think that black people on average are less intelligent than white people. Your chance of getting fired would go down quite a bit - unless you work at google of course.

But generally, yeah, workplaces are also safe spaces, which is not at all surprising and reasonable, given that you're not going there to discuss issues, you're going there to work. So if you say controversial things all the time even though you know your co-workers react emotionally to it, you're sort of intentionally disrupting the workflow. I'm not sure why that must be said, but maybe you've misunderstood my position, so let me be clear: I have absolutely no problem with safe spaces where they make sense. What is ridiculous is when people want to turn environments that are meant for open discourse into safe spaces, because they think certain kinds of people cannot handle the "violent opinions" of other people, or when people start sitting in safe spaces all the time and become unable to handle opinions that are different from their own. I have said as much in my very first post in this thread:

Overall, I do not think the existence of safe spaces is a problem itself, it only becomes a problem when groups call for public places to become safe spaces, or when people spend so much time in their safe spaces that public discourse becomes impossible.

 

[Yeekim]

@Lexicus Hm... based on that it seems to me that a proper "safe space" is something best reserved for trauma victims and such, i.e. people for whom it can be beneficial/ therapeutic if they can simply talk. It is also often a good idea to provide "safety" in the form of anonymity, e.g for respondents of certain surveys. (Even CFC is somewhat of a safe space I guess, by virtue of being both anonymous and moderated).

 

[metatron]

Honest question: what IS a safe space?

A "safe space" is a space, typically phsyical, where certain oppressive speech is prohibited, under threat of stiff punishment.
The concept largely gained popularity in the 90's and early 2000's vis a vis gay rights.
I.e. the idea was to have places in academia (preferably all of it, mind you) where it would not be allowed for "conservative" people to call gay folks "sodomites" or tell them they'd "go to hell" etc.
Arguably a rather laudible effort.
In the meantime however safe spaces have largely degenerated to what Valessa describes, and worse:
Places, essentially encompassing entire universities, where hateful misandrist and/or black supremacist hate speech is rendered immune from criticism, by essentially banning such criticism, or for that matter any political speech by the targeted group.

Arguably the most famous of all safe spaces was a temporary one (usuallly these things are quasi permanent) - the safe space at the J.Valenti v W.McElroy, debate / discussion / whatever they decided to call it.
Which came - and i quote - "equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frollicking puppies".
Needless to say Ms. Valenti lost said debate catastrophically, resulting in much memeage.

Boomers decided to give all their kids trophies at sports because they were terrible parents and couldn't handle the task of parenting a disappointed child. Then they turned around and decided it was their kids' faults that they themselves invented the participation trophy.

This is sort of a "PS".

I really think "participation trophies" are sort of overrated, as a phenomenon.
Like, there is ample scientific evidence that children see through that and generally don't assign value to the lower ranks of "participation trophy" schemes.

I feel the much more significant difference between my generation and millenials is in childhood supervision.
Like, with an ocean worth of distance i was still raised, by - in essence - the equivalent of a 70s mom in the US. You know, like that.
The generation after mine, particularly in the Anglosphere, was raised in an environment of constant supervision.
No standing up to bullies. No stepping forward to affirm ideals. An entire generation that had learned nothing but appealing to the closest authority figure.
Hence the dispicable socio-political results.

In our days it was still perfectly acceptable to get lost; literally. What was the worst that could happen to you? You go to NASA, you meet Sarah Jessica Parker.
You know.

 

[Oerdin]

Lexicus is be2ong so dishonest it is unbelievable. A "safe space" is a place where people of a chosen group get to spew their ignorant bile and propaganda with no one else ever being allowed to challenge them, call them out on the facts, or correct them for factual errors. It is the exact opposite of dialogue or reasoned academic debate. It is just a tool used to shut down real debate and to prevent fact checking so as to arrive at truth. It has no place, absolutely no place what so ever, in any adacemic instiution of higher learning.

It is a tactic used by propagandists to avoid fact based discuss and to silence all other view points. That is all.

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus is be2ong so dishonest it is unbelievable. A "safe space" is a place where people of a chosen group get to spew their ignorant bile and propaganda with no one else ever being allowed to challenge them, call them out on the facts, or correct them for factual errors. It is the exact opposite of dialogue or reasoned academic debate.

A safe space is actually the opposite of this, you've just described what any space that allows anyone to say anything degenerates to very rapidly. In some (therapeutic) settings safe spaces are actually absolutely necessary for people to talk about their issues. I believe the concept actually originated as a way of allowing Vietnam vets to talk about their experiences in the war without fear of judgment or even just ignorant questions that might trigger trauma.

For you to accuse me of dishonesty when my post honestly conveyed my own experiences with safe spaces in college is really silly, by the way. What actual exposure do you have to safe spaces? Have you ever been in a safe space, or do you just read about them on Breitbart or something?

It is a tactic used by propagandists to avoid fact based discuss and to silence all other view points. That is all.

You are so wrong, and it's sad to see you content to wallow in your ignorance this way.

 

[Hygro]

Guys, have you had a conversation where you understood something but had trouble articulating yourself in time for the conversation so what was wrong but dominant carried the day until you got home and thought about it?

Safe spaces are that but for groups.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is a tactic used by propagandists to avoid fact based discuss and to silence all other view points. That is all.

"My opponent is unwilling to tolerate disagreement; I will accept no contradiction on that point."

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think everyone should be woken up at 3AM by a loudspeaker that spouts the slogans of their political opponents.

Your TV can do that. Just leave it on the wrong cable news channel before you go to bed. Or set your TV to turn on at 3AM on said opposition cable news channel.

 

[Oerdin]

"My opponent is unwilling to tolerate disagreement; I will accept no contradiction on that point."

More like he lies and refuses to accept factually based evidence because it contradicts his lies. :shrug:

 

[Traitorfish]

More like he lies and refuses to accept factually based evidence because it contradicts his lies. :shrug:

My point is, you accuse other people of being intolerant of disagreement , but you're unwilling to accept that they motivated by anything other than malice, which is itself a hallmark of totalitarian thinking. Even if you are correct in your characterisation, that only seems to indicate that you're both quietly drafting plans for a gulag.

 

[Lexicus]

More like he lies and refuses to accept factually based evidence because it contradicts his lies. :shrug:

You've presented zero "factually based evidence" in this thread, just a series of rants, and you won't even do me the courtesy of responding to my posts despite mentioning me by name.

 

[Oerdin]

My point is, you accuse other people of being intolerant of disagreement , but you're unwilling to accept that they motivated by anything other than malice, which is itself a hallmark of totalitarian thinking. Even if you are correct in your characterisation, that only seems to indicate that you're both quietly drafting plans for a gulag.

Please show where I have accused other people of being intolerate of disagreement. I have not done so. What I have done is pointed out that a certain poster is completely, totally, utterly wrong in his gushingly favorable mischaracterizations of "safe spaces". So far wrong in such a cartoonish fashion that the only reasonable explanation is that he is deliberately lying. The man sounds like Baghdad Bob.

But I think most honest people already know that no matter how much he continues to squawk.

 

[Traitorfish]

Please show where I have accused other people of being intolerate of disagreement. I have not done so.

A "safe space" is a place where people of a chosen group get to spew their ignorant bile and propaganda with no one else ever being allowed to challenge them, call them out on the facts, or correct them for factual errors.

To clarify, this isn't about you. I don't care about your sense of self any more than I care about your crappy low-res avatar. All I'm saying is, if you expect people to argue in good faith, you should attempt to lead by example.

 

[aelf]

To be fair, I've rarely seen moderates live up to that when push comes to shove. They're still human.