Safe Spaces and RF

[icehorse]

Why would I do that? Unless it called for my death, then it did not infringe on my rights. I'm trying to be clear here. I may not buy it just as I don't buy Hawking's schlock, but I don't care if you read it. Why should I?

Way back many posts ago you said:

No need for bigoted or hate speech anywhere on the forum.

Which is what started this whole exchange.

My point is simply that it's not always easy to know what's bigoted or what's hate speech, and what's not. Many people around the world took this novel to be hate speech, and called for it to be banned.

Censorship is a very, very scary idea.

 

[Mister Emu]

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.

I think we would be talking about different practices. When I "mock" safe spaces, I am not mocking the idea that people need or should have some area where they can go and decompress. Though, I would debate on the propriety of, detrimental nature of, and the integrity of those using said spaces to attack others who are not allowed to voice their opposition to such attacks.

I am firmly against two things in regards to safe spaces. The first is the notion that one should have a safe space sort of bubble which they carry around with them, and therefore all spaces they inhabit should be safe.

The second tends to be a byproduct of the first, the attempt to alter an already existing space into a safe space. There are two types of people who do this, and both need to be roundly condemned. The first are people who feel entitled, as described above, to an eternal safe space. These people need to be made aware that the world does not and should not cater to their fragility. The second get off on the power of making other people conform to what they say and use claims of victimhood and trauma as bludgeons to achieve their goals. These need to be put in their place, that they don't command others.

The worst part about these attempts are that they are most commonly found in education. Legitimate centers of higher learning should not be safe spaces. If a university is doing its job, the classroom and campus simply can't be regions free from intellectual dissent or full of emotional coddling. There is a very serious problem when women get suggestions to avoid "problematic" lecture topics like sexual assault in law, or professors get pressured not to include topics on exams, or professors are reprimanded for correcting basic English errors because it feels aggressive to minorities. That speakers should be barred from the campus because their speech is "triggering" and the campus should be a "safe space". You know, if you want to make a half-assed anti-college, go for it; fundamentalist Christians have been doing it for ages. Go make Snowflake U. Don't try to ruin real education though.

To sum up, as for those my view is somewhat representative of, few are complaining about a sexual assault survivor group with a mandatory supportive atmosphere. Most are against the wholesale assault on intellectual and expressive freedom coming from a segment of the left.

 

[Scuba Pete]

My point is simply that it's not always easy to know what's bigoted or what's hate speech, and what's not.

Sure it is. I may not like a book. I may encourage others to avoid it. I might even ban it from my country for religious reasons. That's all OK. Once I tell my followers to kill the infidel who wrote the book (Salmon Rushdie), then I'm guilty of hate speech. Once I denounce all of America and plot their destruction, then again, I'm guilty of bigotry and even hate speech. Intolerance, bigotry and hate speech should never be glossed over.

 

[icehorse]

Sure it is. I may not like a book. I may encourage others to avoid it. I might even ban it from my country for religious reasons. That's all OK. Once I tell my followers to kill the infidel who wrote the book (Salmon Rushdie), then I'm guilty of hate speech. Once I denounce all of America and plot their destruction, then again, I'm guilty of bigotry and even hate speech. Intolerance, bigotry and hate speech should never be glossed over.

I might personally agree with your conclusions, but the point is that others declared the novel to be bigoted and full of hate speech, and THEY wanted censorship. So, who decides?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, who decides?

They decide in their country what is suitable. I don't think they ever used the word "bigotry". They referred to it as heresy and an insult to their God. Rushdie was an Infidel in their eyes and they put a price on his head. State sponsored assassination is never a good thing, not even if the name is BinLaden. However, their religious intolerance towards one man cannot be construed to be bigotry either. Blending the lines as you're doing doesn't help with clarity in this discussion.

 

[McBell]

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 think the DIRs and "only" places are a good thing.
I have seen many a thread that was progressing nicely in letting me learn about the thread topic be destroyed by trolls and hecklers.

I sometimes follow thread I am not to post in for such reasons of learning more about the thread topic.
And though I do try to not post, I admit that there are times I get so caught up in the thread topic that I forget it is in a DIR or "Only" place and post in it.

And even though I suspect there are members "hiding" in the DIRs and "only" threads, I do not believe that that is the only, or even main, reason the DIRs and "only" threads are used.

 

[icehorse]

They decide in their country what is suitable. I don't think they ever used the word "bigotry". They referred to it as heresy and an insult to their God. Rushdie was an Infidel in their eyes and they put a price on his head. State sponsored assassination is never a good thing, not even if the name is BinLaden. However, their religious intolerance towards one man cannot be construed to be bigotry either. Blending the lines as you're doing doesn't help with clarity in this discussion.

I (think?), I have already acknowledged that I'm using the word "bigotry" in a way that's more precise and unusual than is seen in normal conversation. Muslims were intolerant of the novelist Rushdie's ideas.

I'm an anti-theist. I think that in general, the world's religions are now doing more harm than good. It might not always have been the case, but I believe it is now. I am a harsh critic of Islam and Christianity. I believe they both support bad ideas at their foundations. It would be fair for you to call me bigoted when discussing these two religions.

Given all of this, I have to disagree that there is no room for bigotry on RF, where would I go?

 

[Watchmen]

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.

There's a difference between joining a safe club of like minded people and a university sanctioned "safe place" where certain students may or may not be allowed.

 

[Toten]

It's not exactly easy to discus things with people who share your religion, such as minor ones like Paganism, in a forum/sub-forum that is unspecific and open to everything.

 

[Silverscale derg]

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.

In truth "safe spaces" were around way before the term was made. Sure humans sometimes debated yet the people of one set of ideas can clash in a violent way with those of another idea. An example of that is when the church did the "convert or die" stuff to pagans because they didn't like the way they thought. The witch hunts were one of another idea of that. I wish humans were open with stuff. With who I am as a therian I get quite a lot of hate, i've even been flagged on here for "trolling" which i'm thankful for the mods for not booting me right away, I've also seen people who are more open in real life being attacked for being a therian also where they had their tails pulled, and collars yanked.

I don't like the DIR forums because it's too restrictive. I welcome a friendly debate like all dragons do but it seems humans even in the past resort to the claims of "hate speech" although the concept between humans is more civil than the treatment of us dragons for trying to dare question humans. For humans they'd just call you a nazi or privileged and maybe throw a cup at you but if you're a dragon they'd call you a monster and strike you down then turn around and act so brave.