When are safe spaces a good idea?

[HonestJoe]

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?

I get the idea that this is one of those terms that has developed to be use to refer to a range of quite different things. There’s long been an idea where people who might face regular misunderstand, discrimination or even abuse – say people with particular disabilities - would establish some kind of club when they could get together for mutual support and to just do normal things in an understanding environment. I think that in general can be a very positive thing but it has been taken on by some groups with more political rather than social intentions, turning in to something less “defensive” and more a position from which to attack their opponents.

You then have the quite different concepts of general public spaces (like universities) being declared as “safe spaces”, which is where your concerns about free speech could be valid. I do think we need to be clear about which concepts people are actually taking about when they say “safe space” rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

The question I was responding to was directly in relation to DIRs at RF, rather than the world at large.

In terms of other groups, of course that is true within legal bounds. But there is a difference when talking about a sub-group within a larger population. I'm not suggesting I'm anti-safe space in some carte blanche fashion, but was just pointing out (originally) that our DIRs are not really a good comparison for safe spaces.

 

[sayak83]

The question I was responding to was directly in relation to DIRs at RF, rather than the world at large.

In terms of other groups, of course that is true within legal bounds. But there is a difference when talking about a sub-group within a larger population. I'm not suggesting I'm anti-safe space in some carte blanche fashion, but was just pointing out (originally) that our DIRs are not really a good comparison for safe spaces.

LuisDantas originally used DIR as an example. I was responding to him.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

LuisDantas originally used DIR as an example. I was responding to him.

Yup, I know. It's all good, I was just explaining my terms of reference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

In general, the people who feel the need for "safe spaces" are not shielded from criticism.

It's perfectly normal to want a break from being hassled and harrassed. Sometimes, it can be a relief to, say, just play a board game without having to deal with anti-gay, or anti-atheist, or anti-immigrant, etc. background noise.

Yes, this gives other people slightly less opportunity to try to interact with these people in unwanted ways, but the fact that they only got shouted at, proselytized to, or had offensive notes slipped to them 10 times that week instead of 11 times will make little to no difference in changing that person's mind.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

I can imagine getting to the point of being unable to deal with reality where I can't handle the criticism. It'd be nice to be able to talk with other folks who weren't going to judge me at those times. That never happens in real life. Everybody judges you.

I'd see the need as a weakness though. A mental instability. You need a professional like a psychiatrist. What you don't need is an echo chamber that reinforces your thinking without criticism.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I would only say safe spaces are needed in places where control is minimal and there are different kinds of people walking around.

Sadly American schools are one of them. Almost literal hell, those schools....

 

[PureX]

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.

Why do you think being able to "criticize" other people is so necessary, or important? And when that criticism becomes insult, which it almost always does, what then? Is it so important to you that we all be able to hurl insults at each other, publicly?

Why can't we have public forums in the town square where we can air such differences and complaints and insults for those who are interested, and then be respectful of each other everywhere else? Why shouldn't everywhere be the 'safe space' for people, and the unsafe spaces be the designated exceptions? Does free speech have to mean everywhere, all the time? Does civility and common sense HAVE to be sacrificed on the alter of free speech in every instance and for any reason?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you think being able to "criticize" other people is so necessary, or important?

Mainly because the alternative is all too often to allow resentment and mistrust to accumulate, fester and burst, causing a lot of otherwise avoidable damage.

And when that criticism becomes insult, which it almost always does, what then? Is it so important to you that we all be able to hurl insults at each other, publicly?

Yes, it certainly is, if that is what it takes to avoid worse estrangement further down the line. Acceptance is only possible with a degree of mutual understanding.

Why can't we have public forums in the town square where we can air such differences and complaints and insults for those who are interested, and then be respectful of each other everywhere else?

We must. That is why I am unsympathetic of so-called safe spaces.

Why shouldn't everywhere be the 'safe space' for people, and the unsafe spaces be the designated exceptions?

They should. But they won't for quite some time still, because we are currently very ill equipped to even make a halfway decent attempt. Our psychological and sociological structures,as they currently stand, pretty much demand us not to. That is why we still take notions such as nationality and sovereignity as if they had substance and worth.

Does free speech have to mean everywhere, all the time?

Eventually. But that is not a question that presents itself at the current time. Rather, that would be whether the price of curtaining our freedoms is worth the price at each situation that we find ourselves in.

If the current political climate is any indication, our priority at this time should be in nurturing mutual acceptance and respect, not unstable freedoms that are expensive to create and maintain.

Does civility and common sense HAVE to be sacrificed on the alter of free speech in every instance and for any reason?

No, of course not. As a matter of fact, that should not ever happen if we can help it.

 

[David1967]

Am I missing something?

Nope, I think you are spot on.

 

[PureX]

Mainly because the alternative is all too often to allow resentment and mistrust to accumulate, fester and burst, causing a lot of otherwise avoidable damage.

How do you imagine that the open criticism of other people will lessen this mistrust and resentment? Seems to me all it would do is exacerbate it.

Yes, it certainly is, if that is what it takes to avoid worse estrangement further down the line. Acceptance is only possible with a degree of mutual understanding.

How is "mutual understanding" gained from the open criticism of others? All anyone is likely to understand is that the other sees them as inferior.

PureX posted - "Why can't we have public forums in the town square where we can air such differences and complaints and insults for those who are interested, and then be respectful of each other everywhere else?"

LuisDantus responded - We must. That is why I am unsympathetic of so-called safe spaces.

This is not a rational response. Until you can clear your mind, and find a way to think rationally, you will be unable to discuss or debate this issue effectively.

 

[suncowiam]

People are entitled to safe places, but I would not voluntarily go to one myself.

I find it being stagnant and not being able to grow. It's like being wrapped up in a bubble. That simply is not reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you imagine that the open criticism of other people will lessen this mistrust and resentment? Seems to me all it would do is exacerbate it.

Nope. Silence carries and sustains the worst of all criticisms. Having actual people with faces and names voicing their concerns face-to-face is necessary to dispel fear and mistrust.

How is "mutual understanding" gained from the open criticism of others? All anyone is likely to understand is that the other sees them as inferior.
This is not a rational response. Until you can clear your mind, and find a way to think rationally, you will be unable to discuss or debate this issue effectively.

I will have to live with your judgement. Ironic, considering the circunstances.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. Silence carries and sustains the worst of all criticisms. Having actual people with faces and names voicing their concerns face-to-face is necessary to dispel fear and mistrust.

And if the vulnerable people don't want to indulge having their harassers tell them what they think is wrong with them, what then?

Maybe the LGBT person (for instance) just wants to live his life and not handhold a homophobe through his catharsis.

 

[PureX]

Nope. Silence carries and sustains the worst of all criticisms.

Again, this is just irrational jibberish.

Having actual people with faces and names voicing their concerns face-to-face is necessary to dispel fear and mistrust.

Except that in the world that we are actually living in, this is pretty much never the result. As all the criticism does is further entrench and increase the animosity. Which is why this sort of confrontational "therapy" should be limited to specific places and circumstances, and most of all, limited to those who WANT to participate in it.

 

[LuisDantas]

And if the vulnerable people don't want to indulge having their harassers tell them what they think is wrong with them, what then?

If history is any indication, the harassers will feel that much more justified and motivated.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Living in such a conservative religious area, I appreciate the rare moments I can freely voice my opinions and thoughts on god and religion--Christianity in particular given its majority status and assaults on civil liberties and public education and well being--without having to worry about defending myself or having others go on and on about all their non sense beliefs in regards to those without religion and god. No ignorant questions, no buts, no patronizing "well intentioned concerns," and no comments/remarks that are actually quite offensive overall.
As a therapeutic measure, they are very nice so you can let you guard down for awhile, and associate with people of the same whatever. I couldn't do all the time though (especially because I like debating, sometimes arguing, and love educating Christians about what their Bible actually says). I suspect too much though may have detrimental effects, a "mental drug abuse" of sorts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I dunno. Safe spaces tend to be restrictions themselves. Even the subject matter and disposition tends to be controlled. I don't see much that can be accomplished, especially matters of critique and personal opinions involving opposing views without people outside a safe area having to cry foul over it because they can't respond. It doesn't serve well for what a safe space is designed for, if all it is supposed to, is harbor complimentary speech only and nothing else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If history is any indication, the harassers will feel that much more justified and motivated.

But they won't feel this way if vulnerable people are denied even a slight amount of control over when and where they might be harrassed?

I get the sense that we're talking about different things by the term "safe space."

 

[VioletVortex]

When Trump becomes a democrat.