5 ms·

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. I

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people need to be able to deal with beliefs they don't agree with and a certain amount of offensiveness. Sheltering people only makes them less able to function in society.

pjscott 7y ago
Probably the best we can do is to have a variety of places to discuss things, with a variety of rules and norms and purposes -- and an acknowledgement that one person's safe space is another person's nightmare. https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-sp...
- luckylion 7y ago
  The issue seems to be that if something fun happens in a place that's not a safe space, other will come, demand to participate and then demand that it turns into a safe space so they can participate on their terms.
downerending 7y ago
> I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. I grew up in a rather hard-core religious environment where shaming was a common tactic to enforce conformance. I have no desire whatsoever to return to that.
larrywright 7y ago
In my experience, a lot of these people say they want tolerance, but what they really mean is tolerance of the ideas (and people) they agree with.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  Agreed. Whatever happened the old "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" spirit? Somehow, it just seemed to vanish over the past decade without any explanation.
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  Yeah, you see this everywhere -- "filter bubbles" and all that. People have been trained to expect protection from anything that even vaguely intrudes on their own sense of self-righteousness, and consider this breach the failing of Someone Else (TM), generally the platform operator (whether that's an employer, school, webmaster, mailop, etc.). People expect a mechanism to first, punish the offending author (block, downvote, whatever), and then hide the offending content, and they refuse to engage on any platform that doesn't accommodate this. Not only that, but they often seem to try to destroy the platform for allowing the travesty of frank and honest discussion to take place. There's a part of me that believes the restrictions of the physical world are really necessary for a productive dialogue. You can't stop anyone else from showing up, and the limits of dialogue are how far you can go before someone is throwing punches and you're both getting hauled off to jail. It seems to have a much better track record of producing acceptable middle-ground outcomes than "flag, block, ban".
temp-dude-87844 7y ago
Needing to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone isn't really new, it's just that many people in skewed power dynamics have been able to be avoid doing so for years. Nowadays, if you're the one being offended, you have a lot more tools to connect with others who may feel the same way, and bring attention to your point of view. The armor against true accusations is the same as it always has been: don't be a jerk. The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense.
- tenkabuto 7y ago
  > The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense. This puts too much blame on the falsely accused.

pjscott 7y ago

Probably the best we can do is to have a variety of places to discuss things, with a variety of rules and norms and purposes -- and an acknowledgement that one person's safe space is another person's nightmare. https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-spaces-and-competing-access-needs https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/100561778176/safe-sp...

luckylion 7y ago
The issue seems to be that if something fun happens in a place that's not a safe space, other will come, demand to participate and then demand that it turns into a safe space so they can participate on their terms.

downerending 7y ago

> I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. I grew up in a rather hard-core religious environment where shaming was a common tactic to enforce conformance. I have no desire whatsoever to return to that.

larrywright 7y ago

In my experience, a lot of these people say they want tolerance, but what they really mean is tolerance of the ideas (and people) they agree with.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
Agreed. Whatever happened the old "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" spirit? Somehow, it just seemed to vanish over the past decade without any explanation.
cookiecaper 7y ago
Yeah, you see this everywhere -- "filter bubbles" and all that. People have been trained to expect protection from anything that even vaguely intrudes on their own sense of self-righteousness, and consider this breach the failing of Someone Else (TM), generally the platform operator (whether that's an employer, school, webmaster, mailop, etc.). People expect a mechanism to first, punish the offending author (block, downvote, whatever), and then hide the offending content, and they refuse to engage on any platform that doesn't accommodate this. Not only that, but they often seem to try to destroy the platform for allowing the travesty of frank and honest discussion to take place. There's a part of me that believes the restrictions of the physical world are really necessary for a productive dialogue. You can't stop anyone else from showing up, and the limits of dialogue are how far you can go before someone is throwing punches and you're both getting hauled off to jail. It seems to have a much better track record of producing acceptable middle-ground outcomes than "flag, block, ban".

temp-dude-87844 7y ago

Needing to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone isn't really new, it's just that many people in skewed power dynamics have been able to be avoid doing so for years. Nowadays, if you're the one being offended, you have a lot more tools to connect with others who may feel the same way, and bring attention to your point of view. The armor against true accusations is the same as it always has been: don't be a jerk. The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense.

tenkabuto 7y ago
> The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense. This puts too much blame on the falsely accused.