In Portugal we have a saying that translates to something like this: "Who is not well/happy, should move to another place". And that's whats going to happen. Some users will go to another platforms.
And, in the end, we'll always have the chans...
Create a safe space to encourage participation.
Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
Allow freedom of expression.
Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
I mean this straight; I'd honestly be interested in hearing an elaboration from them, not as snark about how they can't possibly mean it or something. Again, no sarcasm or snark, high principles are hard.
A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me. The concept of a universal "safe space" is an impossibility in that regard.
Only if you are determined to be at odds. It's quite possible for an atheist and a die-hard Christian to get dinner together, if they both commit to focusing on the topics they share rather than the ones they disagree on.
Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense.
seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
That's not honest debate.
>seems like a willful misrepresentation of the aims behind the concept.
As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space." No matter what the original aims are behind the concept, it is easily corruptible and almost never used in the "best case scenario." It's usually used to set up echo-chambers where individuals can feel safe from criticism or debate. It has no place in a healthy society, IMO.
Who says they have to have an honest debate? Why can't they just have a conversation with each other? That's the problem with battling attitudes - there isn't any reason why the two of them must come to blows about their opposing beliefs. They can simply respect each other and move beyond it.
As a white male I am often told that I'm not allowed to participate in discussions because of my race and gender due to the discussion taking place in "safe space."
Interesting, because as a white male myself I have never been told that. I have been told that my opinion in a conversation is not an important one, which is often (not always!) a valid point. But I have never been told I am cannot participate in a discussion solely because it is a "safe space". Where are you having these conversations?
Why is that?
Why is someone's identity more important than the content of their speech in this particular case?
Is it impossible for anyone/a man to be against sexism and yet disagree with someone's characterization of an event?
Are all ideas sacred and above criticism now, or only some ideas?
Which ones?
Who gets to decide that?
Why them?
Why does the right of people to be free from criticism take priority over the right of people to have a discussion?
Why does mere disagreement necessarily need to be classed as a negative thing (as you just did?)
How can such an environment foster any kind of healthy discussion, as opposed to me-too echo-chambering?
If a group has been marginalized, belittled, and excluded for long enough, it can damage the people in that group. They can need a safe place to heal, to realize that they matter, that they are as worthwhile as anyone else, and that they don't have to be what their oppressors said they were. A safe place can be very important in that process.
Or a safe place can be a place where a bunch that feels oppressed because somebody looked at them funny, and feels more oppressed because nobody else thinks they're oppressed, can get together and rehash their sense of victimhood and exclude anyone who disagrees.
Human nature being what it is, the second is perhaps more likely than the first. But that does not make the first invalid (when genuinely needed).
Classic illiberal progressivism.
Actually, nothing even precludes them from discussing religion. Just because we're wired to get into angry shouting matches on the matters that pertain to tribal identification (which I used descriptively, not perjoratively... human psychology can not be understood until you understand that we are deeply tribal, and religion is a huge component of that) does not mean that we are obligated to give in to those impulses.
It's just... really hard. For everybody. And increasingly, giving in to those impulses is being held up a virtue, rather than vice. This bodes poorly for the future of civil society.
Because as far as I'm concerned safe spaces only promote ignorance, one sided narratives, and echo chambers.
America, during the red scare, was a "safe space" for capitalism. Even so much as agreeing with a socialist or communist idea would get you publicly denounced at the least, and jailed at the most.
Safe spaces are private communities for people who can't handle alternative views.
A site-wide harassment ban is one thing. A site-wide "safe space" is entirely different.
Discussion, yes. Absolutely.
Shouting matches? Not so much.
Safe space used to be a term for a very small group of people who agreed to be positive and nurturing towards one another no matter what. This is important for sexual assault survivors, closet gays, the heavily marginalized, etc. to have a space in which they can actually speak with other human beings about their experiences. This is, in reality, a very important thing.
However, it doesn't scale well. Some people have thought, "Hey, I like these safe spaces...what if we make everywhere a safe space? Wouldn't that be great?" What they miss is there isn't one universal definition of safe space and you can't just force your definition upon others.
In a very general sense, at the reddit scale, "safe space" means protecting those who need protecting. That means protecting the disempowered, the marginalized, the minorities, etc. from the ignorance and violence of the masses. Protecting them from the hegemonic power of the majority, which means the patriarchy in general and if we're being honest white males in particular.
It sounds good in principle but who is "empowered" and who is "disempowered" isn't an easy question to answer. To make things worse the tools of enforcing a safe space are so powerful that the people fighting against oppression often become oppressors themselves. In the case of reddit there are many members who are openly abusive and believe it's morally justified because they're "punching up" and it's only real abuse when you hurt people lower on the social ladder than you. (As an aside, this a big reason to claim victimhood: once you're a "victim" you get to do things you otherwise wouldn't.)
What to you mean by "Create a safe space to encourage participation".
Define a safe space. I can't physically hurt anyone, so that's a given. But are they considering a "safe space" a place where I can't say anything potentially insulting, offending or hurtful? In that case, I don't have freedom of expression and neither is Reddit encouraging (my) participation.
Embrace all viewpoints.
Allow total freedom of expression.
Embrace some viewpoints.
Allow some freedom of expression.
Therefore, I would say that technically:
Embrace viewpoints.
Embrace all viewpoints.
As for maintaining decorum, that where the restrictions come into play and have to be specifically stated:
Embrace diversity of viewpoints by permitting all
statements that follow community guidelines on language
pertaining to harassment, crudeness, personal attacks,
etc. Any statements may be censored for not following
community guidelines.I guess you can choose to give them more or less credit based on how closely they hew to a pedantic squeezing of the meaning, but my point was that they do not emphasize that they are absolutes (even where simple language is available to do so).
Maybe the Portuguese version doesn't have those implications, but I find it to be one of the worst arguments a person can make.
You're right that this one is an awful argument because it's not within anyone's power to move to Russia, usually (or otherwise move away from the various laws and regulations that apply to them in the US). However, they absolutely can use a site other than Reddit without problems.
And the problem is not that you can't do it, it's that it's a way of shutting down criticism without addressing it. It's inherently a non sequitur. It basically says, "The problems you point out are not actually problems, because you can go away."
An example: I enter the subway and sit next to a man. For some reason, I stink. The man is unconfortable and asks me to move. I shouldn't move. I am OK where I am. If he's not OK he should be the one moving somewhere else.
I think that probably aligns reddit closer with the USs definition of free speech.
"Hate speech is not free speech" is a remarkably inane statement.
If you are against hate speech, you are against free speech. Opposing free speech is not an unacceptable position however.
A person who supports placing legal limits on expression because they offend a group, religion, political party, etc. can't sincerely claim to be an advocate for free speech. Better to avoid the doublethink and stop defining free speech as speech that you approve of.
The current state of reddit includes a large group going around trying to be offended and then bringing the outrage back to home-base so the group at large can also get that outrage-dopamine kick. For their troubles the person who found the offensive comment or post gets some internet points and their group membership is solidified.
It's fascinating in the sense that it happens but I don't think it's reasonable to lurk in social groups you don't belong to and complain about the local norms.