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.
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.