Safe Spaces and RF

[Debater Slayer]

I have seen a lot of posts on this forum mocking the idea of safe spaces and saying they're for "special snowflakes." One of the arguments behind that, it seems, is that no one should seek to stay away from and stop the expression of opinions they find objectionable during some discussions in specific settings, because that supposedly amounts to unjustified censorship.

A lot of the members who have made such posts use DIRs and "Only" forum sections, though. Now, things are obviously different on an Internet forum, but if you're against the idea of isolating oneself from outsiders' opinions in some discussions in settings where outsiders' criticism is not allowed, why do you yourself do so here?

Also, if safe spaces isolate people from criticism and therefore make them unable to react to it rationally, does using DIRs and "Only" forum sections mean you can't deal with criticism in debates elsewhere on the forums?

Discuss. Also, please note that these aren't meant as rhetorical questions, even if they might look like ones, and that these questions are only aimed at members who reject the idea of safe spaces while using DIRs and other restricted forum sections themselves.

Thank you.

 

[Kirran]

People raising such objections are, as far as I understand things, not uncommonly blind to their own lack of tolerance towards dissenting views. This is likely to be found among people of all sorts of different viewpoints, but I think some would prefer to insulate themselves when opposing views are presented and some would prefer to try and stamp them out through aggressive repudiation.

 

[Deathbydefault]

As long as it ins't a public area, safe space it up. I don't care.... if it's in moderation.
Nazi propaganda probably shouldn't be allowed in college, but a certain group shouldn't be given special treatment either.
The space needs to be one to keep a stable environment, after all.

Controlled or private group discussion, like we see a lot on this site, is something I agree with as well.
Don't want god nuts preaching in the atheist DIR just as much as god lovers don't want militant atheists calling them idiots in their DIRs.

If people want to call it a safe space, that's fine. I feel there's a distinction, but that could just be me.

 

[fantome profane]

I have seen a lot of posts on this forum mocking the idea of safe spaces and saying they're for "special snowflakes." One of the arguments behind that, it seems, is that no one should seek to stay away from and stop the expression of opinions they find objectionable during some discussions in specific settings, because that supposedly amounts to unjustified censorship.

A lot of the members who have made such posts use DIRs and "Only" forum sections, though. Now, things are obviously different on an Internet forum, but if you're against the idea of isolating oneself from outsiders' opinions in some discussions in settings where outsiders' criticism is not allowed, why do you yourself do so here?

Also, if safe spaces isolate people from criticism and therefore make them unable to react to it rationally, does using DIRs and "Only" forum sections mean you can't deal with criticism in debates elsewhere on the forums?

Discuss. Also, please note that these aren't meant as rhetorical questions, even if they might look like ones, and that these questions are only aimed at members who reject the idea of safe spaces while using DIRs and other restricted forum sections themselves.

Thank you.

Interesting comparison. But I have seen people on this board criticise other members of this board for using the DIR's for just this reason. And although I don't think I have ever criticised anyone for doing it, I have had those thoughts, particularly when someone starts a topic in an open section and then retreats to a restricted section.

I don't reject the concept of safe space completely. We all have our safe space, specifically our homes (whether that be our house, apartment or dorm room residence). But I do object when public spaces are arbitrarily declared safe spaces for certain groups. And this is often done by people who don't have the authority to do so.

 

[buddhist]

IMO "snowflakes" seem to require "safe spaces" to avoid confrontation or opinions contrary to their feelings and imaginations.

On the other hand, the use of special forums (in my idea) is to congregate with like-minded individuals for the sake of community and internal discussion and to avoid the "noise" of outsiders .. not because our feelings or imaginations might get hurt or toppled.

 

[Kirran]

The idea of safe spaces, as established on college campuses etc, is to provide an environment in which people who suffer from the aftermath of traumatic experiences or who regularly experience prejudice on account of their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise can be afforded some degree of emotional security.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have no problem with the idea of safe spaces. I have a problem with people who I see abuse them just so they can feel special. And this is a thing.
There are people, the number of which at least appears to be rising, who actively want to have mental issues to feel special. Even on survivor forums, there is at least one person who lies or pretends to have it worse than they have it. I remember once a person admitted to outright lying about being raped, because it happened to them in reality afterwards. It shattered our "safe space" because it was a breach of trust. And that seems to be ignored by the proponents of safe spaces. That there is an element of (let's be fair, mostly kids) who self diagnose or even lie about being triggered and needing safe spaces. And it's these very safe spaces that essentially does not help these kids. There is no one who can (for a lack of a better phrase) call them out for their crybaby tactics. To sort of give them some perspective or I dunno, not tolerate their tantrums. That is a disservice to these kids and indeed to all who actually do have issues that requires emotional security.
And there is another element that either takes it too far or makes it into a farce or even destroys what said safe space was supposed to accomplish.
Now I don't always fit into "safe spaces" because my sense of humor is very harsh, seemingly mean spirited and dark. But I get the need for them. I have just seen it abused too often for me to really get behind them fully.
I see them as too dividing, too indulgent to extremism, too indulgent to insipid "problems." Not all of them, mind you. But they are easily manipulated to become that way by people.
And it's those sorts of elements that do make it harder for everyone else. They end up watering down words like "triggers" and even "sexism/racism." I have seen that word thrown around so often that if I see an accusation of someone being racist or sexist that I do not even heed it. That should not be happening. I should not be becoming numb to potential racist and/or sexists. But I am. People just resort to it so often that it becomes blase. Normal even. Same with words like "sexual harassment." I do not take such words seriously anymore, because there are very overtly sensitive idiots who just use it as a tactic to gain sympathy.
I don't want to, but it just happens slowly over time and before you know it. Bam. You're now numb to accusations of racism, sexism and sexual harassment.
(And yes this is just anecdotal but whatever.)

 

[Skwim]

My impression of those who use DIRs is that they prefer afternoon tea discussions with the choir. No real debate even among like-minded invitees. Not that I feel they shouldn't be able to avail themselves of such pleasures, but the exclusionary nature of these sites doe create a sense of We and Them, which seems a bit divisive. If I have any true complaint it's that sometimes they come up with some very interesting topics which I like to get into, but cant. So, to all those who entice me behind closed doors.

.

 

[Aštra’el]

I would advise any emotionally sensitive people on this site to show more fortitude and psychological resilience when confronted with opinions one subjectively construes to be offensive, particularly when those opinions are well within the established boundaries of this site's rules and regulations.

 

[Thief]

no one is ever really 'safe'
they just think they are

 

[Mindmaster]

I have seen a lot of posts on this forum mocking the idea of safe spaces and saying they're for "special snowflakes." One of the arguments behind that, it seems, is that no one should seek to stay away from and stop the expression of opinions they find objectionable during some discussions in specific settings, because that supposedly amounts to unjustified censorship.

Safe-spaces are for special snowflakes, but far be it from me to lie to you or anyone else. You can't have the safe space and free and Free speech, with the capital F, in the same place. Basically, as soon as you limit content you become the thought police -- at least be honest with yourself that is the role that is being played. I don't see nothing wrong with that as long as people know what the rules of the game are, but if that is not the intent then it's something to work on.

Ultimately, if you let these politics/ideological framings dominate they poison the entire forum. People like to post questionable content once in awhile without feeling the angst of the mods, if it is within reason. Personally, I've given up with argumentative posts -- people think I am attacking or something when I am just making my views known and why. It's not trolling to let someone know they are being stupid when you can prove it, it's an injustice to allow them to continue to live their life ignorant and clueless.

Undoubtedly, this post is just an attempt to trigger someone.

 

[YmirGF]

I have seen a lot of posts on this forum mocking the idea of safe spaces and saying they're for "special snowflakes." One of the arguments behind that, it seems, is that no one should seek to stay away from and stop the expression of opinions they find objectionable during some discussions in specific settings, because that supposedly amounts to unjustified censorship.

A lot of the members who have made such posts use DIRs and "Only" forum sections, though. Now, things are obviously different on an Internet forum, but if you're against the idea of isolating oneself from outsiders' opinions in some discussions in settings where outsiders' criticism is not allowed, why do you yourself do so here?

Also, if safe spaces isolate people from criticism and therefore make them unable to react to it rationally, does using DIRs and "Only" forum sections mean you can't deal with criticism in debates elsewhere on the forums?

Discuss. Also, please note that these aren't meant as rhetorical questions, even if they might look like ones, and that these questions are only aimed at members who reject the idea of safe spaces while using DIRs and other restricted forum sections themselves.

Thank you.

Personally, I've always seen the Dir's as foxholes and only frequent them occasionally. I certainly don't need the Mystics Dir to toot my horn, LOL and am happy ravaging posters wherever I find them. As far as being so-called "safe spaces". Good grief. Can't we just kill this idea before it really gains traction? Life is not safe. The world is not safe. Get used to it. Besides, isn't the passive-aggressive bully approach a bit passe yet?

 

[Laika]

The debate seems to be less about whether or not safe spaces are okay and more about what safe spaces are.

The side for see's them as an area where minority groups which are dealt with hostility in an everyday environment to be in a space where they don't have to deal with a certain subject like sexual assault or discrimination like racism or homophobia.

The side against seem's to think that it's an area where crazy feminazi's go to talk about their ideological beliefs, not look at any opposing viewpoints and feed eachother's egos.

If it's not evident already, I think they're fine.


As for the context within RF,

A while ago, Laika posted a thread about Obama not being a socialist in the socialist (or communist) DIR to make his position clear to the rest of the left. He then made a discussion thread in the not DIR after being criticized.

All the discussion which was not in a dir was based in misconception and buzzwords.
I understand why DIR's exist.

If someone wants to criticize something said they can make their own thread in debates.

I'd find RF near unusable if there wasn't somewhere to take a "time out". Whilst there is a fairly solid political left-libertarian consensus on the forums, the community is too diverse to have everyone sharing just the main forums.

Non-conformity is hard. If I wanted a "safe space" for my views I could always go back to Revleft, but I make the effort and I like it here. Having the ability to take a time out means you can take a deep breath and keep things in perspective rather than feel outnumbered or underattack. In time it gets easier to handle people with different and opposing views.

Safe-spaces are for special snowflakes, but far be it from me to lie to you or anyone else. You can't have the safe space and free and Free speech, with the capital F, in the same place. Basically, as soon as you limit content you become the thought police -- at least be honest with yourself that is the role that is being played. I don't see nothing wrong with that as long as people know what the rules of the game are, but if that is not the intent then it's something to work on.

Ultimately, if you let these politics/ideological framings dominate they poison the entire forum. People like to post questionable content once in awhile without feeling the angst of the mods, if it is within reason. Personally, I've given up with argumentative posts -- people think I am attacking or something when I am just making my views known and why. It's not trolling to let someone know they are being stupid when you can prove it, it's an injustice to allow them to continue to live their life ignorant and clueless.

Undoubtedly, this post is just an attempt to trigger someone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I've given up with argumentative posts -- people think I am attacking or something when I am just making my views known and why. It's not trolling to let someone know they are being stupid when you can prove it, it's an injustice to allow them to continue to live their life ignorant and clueless.

Undoubtedly, this post is just an attempt to trigger someone.

It's bad form to "let someone know they are being stupid".
No one ever learns this by being told.
The best one can do is let the conversation illuminate what it will.
And sometimes the accuser is hoist by his (or her) own petard.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

My impression of those who use DIRs is that they prefer afternoon tea discussions with the choir. No real debate even among like-minded invitees.

There's plenty of discussion that I've seen. The point of the DIR system is so that the discussion can take place without being derailed by people trying to convert us, or by idiots who come here trying to be clever and who really belong on twitter.

 

[Mindmaster]

It's bad form to "let someone know they are being stupid".
No one ever learns this by being told.
The best one can do is let the conversation illuminate what it will.
And sometimes the accuser is hoist by his (or her) own petard.

Meh, I was only half serious here. The backfire effect holds true in any conversation, and thanks to SJWs poisoning the educational system everyone thinks they are equally genius even if they're five IQ points from special education. Honesty these days is a thought crime, and it shouldn't be -- it saves time for everyone. I come from a different time zone, generation X, where absolutely no one cared about your poor little feelings.

Mostly, all of these progressive "values" just serve to cater to the weak, dumb, and mediocre. We used to pride ourselves on excellence, strength, and integrity. Pardon me, if I'd like a little more of that.

 

[columbus]

I don't much care for safe places. I like a good dust up.
If I didn't, I wouldn't go on the internet and argue about religion and abortion and politics and stuff.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't much care for safe places. I like a good dust up.
If I didn't, I wouldn't go on the internet and argue about religion and abortion and politics and stuff.

Tom

GrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRrrrRRRrrr!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Safe spaces. I like 'em. Call me a special snowflake or any other denigration. If I don't feel safe or respected, I just leave. I've left several times and when I feel like I can take the crap thrown at me, I come back.

I honestly don't know what DIR stands for, except for Scuba Diving. Talk about your "Special Snowflakes". So bear with this on topic semi-hijack.

There is a particularly vitriolic group of divers called DIR (Do it Right). They were born of the Quest User group by a gentleman we shall refer to as GI3. Now GI3 was a particularly opinionated diver who wrote an article that gave birth to the DIR movement. If you didn't dive the way he did, he would point out what a "stroke" you are. Yes, it kind of meant unsafe, but it really meant you were an egotistical albeit clueless diver who should give up diving and go stroke a golf club instead. This way you wouldn't get hurt and you couldn't hurt others. He went so far as to post how happy he was when people he loathed passed away. DIR divers are known for diving a derivative of a "Hogarthian" kit and were begrudgingly admired for their discipline and their presence in the water, especially in regards to trim and neutral buoyancy. It's an incredibly structured way to dive.

Unfortunately, many internet divers really liked GI3's bombastic approach and they tried to use it on forums, much to our chagrin and their detriment. All of a sudden, they found themselves besot by angry divers. They tried to have discussions on ScubaBoard, but they kept getting interrupted by all the people they pissed off. So, we turned our DIR into a special forum. Non-DIR folk could ask how they dove but they couldn't ask why. We had to create a safe area for some of the most belligerent people on the forum.

FWIW, they can still have discussions out side of their area, which they do. This made ScubaBoard usable for them and I'm happy about that.

A funny aside. I also dive a modified Hogarthian rig and am well known for not only having mastered buoyancy, trim and propulsion, but being able to teach those subjects. Not only have some people mistaken me for being DIR, the leader of the DIR movement (now called GUE to avoid all the negatives) thought I was as well. So much so that they accidentally included me in one of their promotional videos. You can see me at 7:28 if you're son inclined.

One last thing, before I forget: What doe DIR mean here?

 

[columbus]

GrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRrrrRRRrrr!

Columbus jerks Rev's kilt off and tosses it over Rev's head to @SomeRandom .
Tom