cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2421185
Safe spaces are places that help build community and support between people that are marginalized in wider society (like LGBTQ+, African/Native/Asian Americans, autistic people, etc.)
In our day and age this is necessary because the wider world can be hostile to ideas and behaviours that push against the social norm. These ideas and behaviours that are expressed in these communities are, almost by definition, actively pushing against the social norm and trying to advocate for new and better social norms.
The way that these ideas are attacked can either be direct or indirect in their nature but all of the attacks essentially boils down to unhelpful criticism of the core idea.
For example, if someone made a comment about LGBTQ+ rights and how they need to be advocated more in general society but then someone else comes along and questions whether or not there is any fundamental inequality between LGBTQ+ people and wider society they are implicitly stifling conversation through questioning the core premise of inequality which stops further conversation.
Criticism can be great and help expose weaknesses in initial ideas but at the same time, it also can end up stifling creativity and discussion when people don't feel emotionally safe sharing their views with others in the community.
This is exactly why ideas can be fragile. Even great ideas and behaviours can end up being forgotten or abandoned because people excessively criticize them without actually developing them further.
This is why safe spaces are important to help nurture and build ideas/behaviours that otherwise would have a hard time gaining traction and help develop them so they become more resilient.
So how do we balance the need for critique and support in communities?
I think a good way of doing this would be to encourage constructive dissent - disagreeing in ways that help build on top of an idea instead of directly stifling it.
This is done by accepting the core premise from the person you are talking to and finding ways to make the idea/behaviour they presented better.
This is exactly why in improv it is important to have the attitude of "Yes, and" because otherwise the scene won't go anywhere and will either be stuck or completely dissolve.
Takeaway:
We need more communities where ideas can be built on top of each other instead of just being beaten down.
Unfortunately, a lot of these safe spaces become echo chambers. People don't want to have their views challenged or try to see things from other perspectives. Many attempts at constructive dissent as mentioned in this post are discouraged and are generally unwelcome.
When I say "constructive dissent" I mean building on top of someone else ideas not just pointing out flaws in their ideas. I think that if someone suggested something that made the idea better people would be more than happy to take that and roll with it.
I understand the concept. I'm saying that this way of working creates echo chambers.
Imagine you're trying to organize people to throw a party, and you have somebody come in who wants to argue that parties are evil because they distract people from glorifying God. Should you hear this person out and engage them in conversation? Or just block them?
This is a very extreme example. I'm saying that more nuanced discussion and differences in views from within a community struggle in safe spaces.
In my experience echo chambers are either created intentionally or as a result of laziness. You can have safe-spaces with constructive, critical, supportive, feedback.
Do you have an example?
What do you think would be a good way to make sure that they are less likely to become echo chambers or do you think this way of interacting is doomed to make them echo chambers?
I think we need to either redefine safe spaces, change people's expectations of them, or get rid of them entirely.
What does a safe space mean to you and how would you redefine it? What expectations do you think people have of safe spaces and in what ways should they change?
FYI: sorry for asking a lot of questions. I am trying to get a better sense of what you think could be done to improve these ideas.
Ah outline for open debate, basically the Beehaw rules. If I say "I don't see oppression on a daily basis, please explain how you feel you are being oppressed." There's a non zero chance that someone will get pissed at me and tell me to leave. There are some aggressive people in minority spaces who push out others. It happens in the deaf community as well.
I think this whole discourse regarding safe spaces is a good explanation of why safe spaces, in my opinion, aren't needed and are flawed.
People will normally flock to groups that provide confirmation bias. Why? Because most people don't want to be told their idea isn't good. So safe spaces are de facto already created by group think that already exists.
Additionally, how would the initial comment questioning the need for safe spaces in this thread have been handled in a safe space? Would it automatically be moderated/deleted because it didn't agree with the published safe space narrative? We have all had a respectful discourse regarding the validity of safe spaces which is great. If we didn't have this people could not understand the opposing viewpoint or change their viewpoint.
My guess is that you are not part of an oppressed group? It is very easy for those used to privilege to criticise those from less privileged groups for wanting their own spaces because they have not experienced what it is like to be othered.
The point is to be free from the oppression that they experience often on a daily basis, not to keep their ideas unchallenged.
Restricted membership groups are still valuable, no matter what you want to call it.
Shared experiences are often a good foundation for a group: residents of a particular neighborhood, alumni of a particular school, members of a particular family, etc. You can see lively discussion there that opens up in a way that might not happen in a general open group.
Common beliefs also form a good foundation for group membership. Almost every religion has meetings of other members of that religion, where discussion can happen within that framework of that religion's views. A Baptist bible study group wouldn't tolerate a new member coming in and just insisting every meeting that the Bible is fake and that Christianity is a lie. Does it create an "echo chamber" of only people who believe in a specific religion? Well, yes, because that's the point, and why those members choose to congregate there.
Hell, I'm in a sibling chat thread where specific members of my family feel safe talking about their struggles with their significant others, roommates, jobs, neighbors, etc., because we like being able to bounce ideas off of people raised like us, by the same parents, in the same household. I don't think we'd be able to have that productive conversation if we didn't have that specific thread that we knew was just for us, and not for the other people in our lives to read and comment on.
Unless you're taking the radical view that people shouldn't be allowed to congregate in smaller groups that restrict membership, safe spaces are a natural consequence of how people associate with one another.
“Constructive dissent” can occur in safe spaces. What’s unwelcome is unconstructive dissent.
I think the idea that people should have their views challenged all (or even most) of the time is pretty silly.
Who said anything about challenging views all or most of the time?
The issue with constructive dissent is that if someone perceives an initial idea as bad, it cannot be dismissed or criticised; it has to be built on. Do we want things to be built on flawed foundations? We should be able to say "no" without being cast out from our own community.
Isn't this what safe spaces are for though? Developing ideas and emotions without fear of normie criticism. You can talk about your private political issues and thoughts (what it's like being trans, how to properly do socialism) without judgment or needing to explain yourself to outsiders.
If you disagree with the basis for the safe space though (trans liberation, Communism reading circle, etc.) then of course you won't be welcome there.
If an initial idea is bad it should be possible to choose not to build on top of those ideas and instead build on top of ideas that you think are better. When someone presents a bad idea it's ok to not agree with it but just saying no can cause the other person to feel like they aren't valued and are less likely to introduce their new ideas.
Edit emphasis on just. Also, I agree that just disagreeing shouldn't be enough to kick you out of the community. It is excessive disagreement (so much that it stops all other conversations) is what can be an issue.
The idea that underprivileged groups create echo chambers is laughable when you think of the number of explicity conservative social media platforms.
As I said to someone below, my guess is that you are not part of an oppressed group? It is very easy for those used to privilege to criticise those from less privileged groups for wanting their own spaces because they have not experienced what it is like to be othered.
The point is to be free from the oppression that they experience often on a daily basis, not to keep their ideas unchallenged.
Sure, small groups of closed-minded people can easily become echo chambers. For everyone else, safe spaces can be a way to support thoughts or feelings that may not otherwise be expressed and discussed. I guess the question becomes “What percentage of safe spaces are made up of mostly close-minded people?” If you assume that most people are close-minded, then you are correct.