When are safe spaces a good idea?

[LuisDantas]

For a while now I have felt unconfortable with the concept.

Recently I came to understand a bit better why. It is because safe spaces are commitments to protect a group from criticism, and therefore restrictions to free speech. To propose them requires an explicit or implicit claim that said group is unfairly criticized, and that is not always the case.

Am I missing something?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So, is the RF eliminating the DIRs?

 

[sayak83]

For a while now I have felt unconfortable with the concept.

Recently I came to understand a bit better why. It is because safe spaces are commitments to protect a group from criticism, and therefore restrictions to free speech. To propose them requires an explicit or implicit claim that said group is unfairly criticized, and that is not always the case.

Am I missing something?

How does a safe place actually work?
The one I can think of is the Catholic confession system.

 

[LuisDantas]

How does a safe place actually work?
The one I can think of is the Catholic confession system.

DIRs are a form of safe space. For various reasons, it happens that some schools, news plataforms of various kinds, political movements and other environments attempt to establish varieties of the concept as well.

Sometimes it is justified as protection from actual persecution, but it can be a blurry line, if not a full slippery slope.

Perhaps safe spaces are best envisioned as a therapeutic measure of sorts, not to be confused for a permanent goal. I am still thinking about it. But I have noticed that some proposals for safe spaces irk me off at the moment I learn of them, mainly because I think the protected group needs to learn to accept criticism, not avoid it.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, is the RF eliminating the DIRs?

Heck, no. I personally do not much like the concept, but even if it were up to me personally - which it is not - that would not result in removing the DIRs, except perhaps for a very few.

 

[sayak83]

DIRs are a form of safe space. For various reasons, it happens that some schools, news plataforms of various kinds, political movements and other environments attempt to establish varieties of the concept as well.

Sometimes it is justified as protection from actual persecution, but it can be a blurry line, if not a full slippery slope.

Perhaps safe spaces are best envisioned as a therapeutic measure of sorts, not to be confused for a permanent goal. I am still thinking about it. But I have noticed that some proposals for safe spaces irk me off at the moment I learn of them, mainly because I think the protected group needs to learn to accept criticism, not avoid it.

DIR are places where individual with similar ideologies or interests discuss things within that framework. It's simply not a public open to all group. Don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

DIR are places where individual with similar ideologies or interests discuss things within that framework. It's simply not a public open to all group. Don't see anything wrong with that.

The other key difference are that anyone can read what is written in the DIRs, and that moderators are responsible for ensuring they are not used to bash groups excluded from them. Indeed, the excluded groups have the right to report content.

 

[Laika]

Am I missing something?

We live in a free society and people may associate freely on whatever basis they chose. Individuals have the right to ignore criticism and doing so does not prohibit a person's legal freedom of expression.

Responding to criticism is not an obligation, regardless as to whether it is fair or not. The use of safe spaces it has nothing to do with the nature of the criticism, only the supremacy of individual rights to have the autonomy to decide how to respond to it- including ignoring it completely.

 

[Sunstone]

All humans have security needs. That's a simple fact, but it seems very easy to overlook it. Public safe spaces appear to be little more than an extension of the concept that one's home should be a safe space free from unwelcomed and unnecessary intrusions. Whether they're a good idea or not, I'll leave to others to decide.

 

[sun rise]

Safe spaces are needed especially under certain circumstances. One example: women who have been severely traumatized by being raped want to have a place to deal with the trauma with other victims. Having someone able to post "you should have done ..." in that space would stop the healing process as emotionally damaged people could not handle such put downs.

Going to a less extreme example, suppose devoted members of a religion want to talk amongst themselves about some theological questions and find 10 "you're wrong to be a believer and here's proof" for every comment by a member of that religion, the conversation is hijacked and ended.

But also there should be space for those who want to have a free-form debate as we have here with both DIRs and open debate areas. It's to me a decent arrangement.

 

[LuisDantas]

We live in a free society and people may associate freely on whatever basis they chose.

Freedom exists only to the extent that other people cooperate with it. Safe spaces are inherently a form of restriction of freedom.

Individuals have the right to ignore criticism

Do they? Under which circunstances, and why exactly?

We do not exist in a world that enables us all to act as inconsequential children. Our actions and omissions, right or wrong, fairly or unfairly, have consequences on others.

On the general case, we definitely do not have such a right. On the contrary, there is a moral duty to address criticism to the better of our abilities.

and doing so does not prohibit a person's legal freedom of expression.

If the laws are set up in such a way for those specific individuals, sure. But that is not the level of discussion that interests me in this thread. Law is just law. It has no moral significance and no reason nor wisdom of its own.

I am interested in the practical significance, justification and consequences of safe spaces and of their absence. Law is immaterial for that, or at most comes as a consequence of taking some stance on those matters.

Responding to criticism is not an obligation, regardless as to whether it is fair or not. The use of safe spaces it has nothing to do with the nature of the criticism, only the supremacy of individual rights to have the autonomy to decide how to respond to it- including ignoring it completely.

Trouble is, your premise is that individuals do not owe anything to the world that we live in. And that is all-out ficticious and unsustainable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Public safe spaces appear to be little more than an extension of the concept that one's home should be a safe space free from unwelcomed and unnecessary intrusions.

Would you have some idea of where does that idea originate? Somehow I don't recall it.

 

[Sunstone]

Would you have some idea of where does that idea originate? Somehow I don't recall it.

You don't think people regard their homes -- and perhaps some other places -- as special places where they ought to be safe from such things as unnecessary and uninvited intrusions? I can't think of anyone I know who believes he or she has no right to security in their own home.

 

[LuisDantas]

Safe spaces are needed especially under certain circumstances. One example: women who have been severely traumatized by being raped want to have a place to deal with the trauma with other victims. Having someone able to post "you should have done ..." in that space would stop the healing process as emotionally damaged people could not handle such put downs.

I agree. That seems to be somewhat similar to the therapeutic considerations that I mentioned in post #4 above.

Still, dealing with trauma implies a temporary measure as opposed to a sustained state of affairs. I think the distinction is significant and often overlooked.

Going to a less extreme example, suppose devoted members of a religion want to talk amongst themselves about some theological questions and find 10 "you're wrong to be a believer and here's proof" for every comment by a member of that religion, the conversation is hijacked and ended.

Yes, that sure makes sense.

On the other hand, I want to point out that devotion to a religion is a right, but as with any other human effort there is a price to be paid. Dedication means choosing to renounce other choices and other priorities in order to enable the subject of that dedication.

Much as business enterprises fail or thrive on the merits of the efforts of those commited to them, so should religious and ideological groups. That is not only unavoidable, but actually necessary for a healthy society.

Renewal of ideas and postures is a basic need for any culture, and if unsustainable specimens are not allowed to fizzle out, we end up with a society that sacrifices itself in order to protect its own cadavers from dissolving into nothingness.

But also there should be space for those who want to have a free-form debate as we have here with both DIRs and open debate areas. It's to me a decent arrangement.

Fair enough. But that is so mainly because a digital forum does not need to be sustainable in parameters comparable to full real life communities. There is a significant danger that specific people may become too reliant on DIRs and unable to fully deal with their own convictions in unprotected spaces, not entirely unlike people who grow confined and are lacking in exposition to diversity of ideas and people.

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't think people regard their homes -- and perhaps some other places -- as special places where they ought to be safe from such things as unnecessary and uninvited intrusions?

For personal reasons, I am not fully capable of understanding that idea, much as I would like to.

I can't think of anyone I know who believes he or she has no right to security in their own home.

Fair enough. I can't really address that either way. It is beyond my experience.

 

[Laika]

Freedom exists only to the extent that other people cooperate with it. Safe spaces are inherently a form of restriction of freedom.

In a classical liberal context, freedom is a property of the will of the individual and therefore a natural right. my understanding is that it does not diminish simply because others do not co-operate with it. The form of freedom you are talking about is clearly not a liberal one.

Do they? Under which circunstances, and why exactly?

We do not exist in a world that enables us all to act as inconsequential children. Our actions and omissions, right or wrong, fairly or unfairly, have consequences on others.

On the general case, we definitely do not have such a right. On the contrary, there is a moral duty to address criticism to the better of our abilities.

We have a duty to ourselves to be rational, given that we will individually suffer the consequences of our own irrationality. Whilst I can certainly appreciate the frustration and difficulty in dealing with the irrationality of other people, unless it extends directly to a form of harm, it is generally not within an accepted scope of a person to do anything about it because it impedes a person's autonomy.

If the laws are set up in such a way for those specific individuals, sure. But that is not the level of discussion that interests me in this thread. Law is just law. It has no moral significance and no reason nor wisdom of its own.

I am interested in the practical significance, justification and consequences of safe spaces and of their absence. Law is immaterial for that, or at most comes as a consequence of taking some stance on those matters.

I would understand "freedom of speech" as a legal condition, whereas clearly you do not here. If we are talking about practical terms, we are not talking about the rights of individuals to autonomy as written in the law. We are talking about power relations in society. In the context of criticism, you are essentially saying that one person has the power to criticise another and they have the obligation to accept it. Would that be an unfair characterisation?

Trouble is, your premise is that individuals do not owe anything to the world that we live in. And that is all-out ficticious and unsustainable.

There is a significant difference between saying we "owe" the world for material goods that are produced, and saying that the inner contents of our minds and experiences are "owed" to someone else. It is a point of departure into distinctly illiberal and collectivist modes of thought.

Your essentially arguing against the individuals freedom of thought and that the will of an individual to think is subject to a social obligations. That may be unfair and you are free to argue against such a characterisation of your position. I would urge caution if however that is a more accurate representation of the logical effect of an obligation to respond to criticism. Arguing against another person's free thought typically becomes a weapon against our own.

 

[sayak83]

The other key difference are that anyone can read what is written in the DIRs, and that moderators are responsible for ensuring they are not used to bash groups excluded from them. Indeed, the excluded groups have the right to report content.

That's because this is a public forum simulating private discussion groups. Actual private discussion groups (real or on internet) can make all their content and meetings visible and accessible to only members of their group. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[sayak83]

All humans have security needs. That's a simple fact, but it seems very easy to overlook it. Public safe spaces appear to be little more than an extension of the concept that one's home should be a safe space free from unwelcomed and unnecessary intrusions. Whether they're a good idea or not, I'll leave to others to decide.

Yes, it's basically privacy rights extended to a group.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think safe spaces are only good when it's a therapeutic setting. AA meetings, counselling sessions, survivors meetings etc. Clubs can also be a safe space for people to discuss whatever it is they want to discuss. Or specific religious/political groups. If they want to have a bit of exchange without anyone else then fine.

But if you're holding some sort of debate, be it in school or an actual debate then I think all bets are off. Polite decorum standards notwithstanding.

 

[Enoch07]

For a while now I have felt unconfortable with the concept.

Recently I came to understand a bit better why. It is because safe spaces are commitments to protect a group from criticism, and therefore restrictions to free speech. To propose them requires an explicit or implicit claim that said group is unfairly criticized, and that is not always the case.

Am I missing something?

No idea is above criticism. So long as you only criticize the idea and not the person(s) for expressing that idea, there should be no need for safe spaces.

Part of the issue is someone can criticize an idealogy and one of its idealogues will take that as a personal attack. When in fact it is not. Hence safe spaces were created. So instead of a free market of ideas, you get pockets of safe space echo chambers were only people that agree with you are allowed to speak.

This has been my experience anyways with various parts of the internet. Tumblr/Twitter being probably the best examples and newer stuff like Mastadon (block chain takes it to a whole new level), and other toxic internet holes.