4 ms·

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 un

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 11y 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 11y 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.
  - jklinger410 11y ago
    But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them? Because as far as I'm concerned safe spaces only promote ignorance, one sided narratives, and echo chambers. America, during the red scare, was a "safe space" for capitalism. Even so much as agreeing with a socialist or communist idea would get you publicly denounced at the least, and jailed at the most. Safe spaces are private communities for people who can't handle alternative views. A site-wide harassment ban is one thing. A site-wide "safe space" is entirely different.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them? Discussion, yes. Absolutely. Shouting matches? Not so much.
- jklinger410 11y ago
  >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. That's not honest debate. >seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept. As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space." No matter what the original aims are behind the concept, it is easily corruptible and almost never used in the "best case scenario." It's usually used to set up echo-chambers where individuals can feel safe from criticism or debate. It has no place in a healthy society, IMO.
  - untog 11y ago
    That's not honest debate. Who says they have to have an honest debate? Why can't they just have a conversation with each other? That's the problem with battling attitudes - there isn't any reason why the two of them must come to blows about their opposing beliefs. They can simply respect each other and move beyond it. As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space." Interesting, because as a white male myself I have never been told that. I have been told that my opinion in a conversation is not an important one, which is often (not always!) a valid point. But I have never been told I am cannot participate in a discussion solely because it is a "safe space". Where are you having these conversations?
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Is there a meaningful and substantial difference between those two things? Both amount to "your input is not welcome here", both amount to classifying one's identity more important than the content of their speech, and the entire concept of a "safe space" is one in which mere disagreement is explicitly disallowed.
      - untog 11y ago
        Absolutely there is a difference. If a group of women are talking about their experiences of sexism in the workplace they ought to be able to do without a man coming in and "actually"-ing them.
- djillionsmix 11y ago
  More like a recognition of the concept as demonstrated and practiced.

untog 11y 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 11y 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.
- jklinger410 11y ago
  But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them? Because as far as I'm concerned safe spaces only promote ignorance, one sided narratives, and echo chambers. America, during the red scare, was a "safe space" for capitalism. Even so much as agreeing with a socialist or communist idea would get you publicly denounced at the least, and jailed at the most. Safe spaces are private communities for people who can't handle alternative views. A site-wide harassment ban is one thing. A site-wide "safe space" is entirely different.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them? Discussion, yes. Absolutely. Shouting matches? Not so much.
jklinger410 11y ago
>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. That's not honest debate. >seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept. As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space." No matter what the original aims are behind the concept, it is easily corruptible and almost never used in the "best case scenario." It's usually used to set up echo-chambers where individuals can feel safe from criticism or debate. It has no place in a healthy society, IMO.
- untog 11y ago
  That's not honest debate. Who says they have to have an honest debate? Why can't they just have a conversation with each other? That's the problem with battling attitudes - there isn't any reason why the two of them must come to blows about their opposing beliefs. They can simply respect each other and move beyond it. As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space." Interesting, because as a white male myself I have never been told that. I have been told that my opinion in a conversation is not an important one, which is often (not always!) a valid point. But I have never been told I am cannot participate in a discussion solely because it is a "safe space". Where are you having these conversations?
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Is there a meaningful and substantial difference between those two things? Both amount to "your input is not welcome here", both amount to classifying one's identity more important than the content of their speech, and the entire concept of a "safe space" is one in which mere disagreement is explicitly disallowed.
    - untog 11y ago
      Absolutely there is a difference. If a group of women are talking about their experiences of sexism in the workplace they ought to be able to do without a man coming in and "actually"-ing them.
djillionsmix 11y ago
More like a recognition of the concept as demonstrated and practiced.