5 ms·

That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]: Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freed

That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]: Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freedom of expression. Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself. As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are fully within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy. [1]:https://www.reddit.com/about/values https://www.reddit.com/about/values

mhomde 12y ago
Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that
maxerickson 12y ago
It doesn't say Embrace all viewpoints. Allow total freedom of expression. There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.
- talmand 12y ago
  I would say the original statements and your version of the statements are the same thing. If they were not they should read as: Embrace some viewpoints. Allow some freedom of expression. With whatever variation on the language as necessary. If the statement doesn't originally place a restriction on the idea, then it isn't necessary to specifically state there is no restriction. Therefore, I would say that technically: Embrace viewpoints. Embrace all viewpoints. Are, in fact, the same thing. As for maintaining decorum, that where the restrictions come into play and have to be specifically stated: Embrace diversity of viewpoints by permitting all statements that follow community guidelines on language pertaining to harassment, crudeness, personal attacks, etc. Any statements may be censored for not following community guidelines.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    It's a fuzzy statement of values from a corporation. Reading it as if it is a computer program is a mistake. I guess you can choose to give them more or less credit based on how closely they hew to a pedantic squeezing of the meaning, but my point was that they do not emphasize that they are absolutes (even where simple language is available to do so).
    - talmand 12y ago
      While true, that doesn't give you license to decide the definition of their statements.
jerf 12y ago
I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced. I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.
- jklinger410 12y ago
  Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.
  - untog 12y ago
    A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on. Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
    - jerf 12y ago
      "It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on." Actually, nothing even precludes them from discussing religion. Just because we're wired to get into angry shouting matches on the matters that pertain to tribal identification (which I used descriptively, not perjoratively... human psychology can not be understood until you understand that we are deeply tribal, and religion is a huge component of that) does not mean that we are obligated to give in to those impulses. It's just... really hard. For everybody. And increasingly, giving in to those impulses is being held up a virtue, rather than vice. This bodes poorly for the future of civil society.
Vaskivo 12y ago
To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy". What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation". Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.

mhomde 12y ago

Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that

maxerickson 12y ago

It doesn't say Embrace all viewpoints. Allow total freedom of expression. There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.

talmand 12y ago
I would say the original statements and your version of the statements are the same thing. If they were not they should read as: Embrace some viewpoints. Allow some freedom of expression. With whatever variation on the language as necessary. If the statement doesn't originally place a restriction on the idea, then it isn't necessary to specifically state there is no restriction. Therefore, I would say that technically: Embrace viewpoints. Embrace all viewpoints. Are, in fact, the same thing. As for maintaining decorum, that where the restrictions come into play and have to be specifically stated: Embrace diversity of viewpoints by permitting all statements that follow community guidelines on language pertaining to harassment, crudeness, personal attacks, etc. Any statements may be censored for not following community guidelines.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  It's a fuzzy statement of values from a corporation. Reading it as if it is a computer program is a mistake. I guess you can choose to give them more or less credit based on how closely they hew to a pedantic squeezing of the meaning, but my point was that they do not emphasize that they are absolutes (even where simple language is available to do so).
  - talmand 12y ago
    While true, that doesn't give you license to decide the definition of their statements.

jerf 12y ago

I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced. I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.

jklinger410 12y ago
Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.
- untog 12y ago
  A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on. Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense. seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
  - jerf 12y ago
    "It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on." Actually, nothing even precludes them from discussing religion. Just because we're wired to get into angry shouting matches on the matters that pertain to tribal identification (which I used descriptively, not perjoratively... human psychology can not be understood until you understand that we are deeply tribal, and religion is a huge component of that) does not mean that we are obligated to give in to those impulses. It's just... really hard. For everybody. And increasingly, giving in to those impulses is being held up a virtue, rather than vice. This bodes poorly for the future of civil society.

Vaskivo 12y ago

To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy". What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation". Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.