Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

That is exactly what it is, by their own reckoning[1]:

    Create a safe space to encourage participation.
    Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
    Allow freedom of expression.
    Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.

As long as they claim to be holding themselves to that standard, people are fully within their rights to call them out on hypocrisy.

[1]:https://www.reddit.com/about/values

View on HN

I'd be curious about their exact definition of "safe space". That term on college campuses is rapidly evolving exactly into ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is not even seen or heard, let alone embraced.

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.

Safe space is just code for coddling the first person to claim offense.

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.

A safe space for you, if we are at odds, is an unsafe space for me.

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.

"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."

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.

But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them?

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.

> But doesn't a civil society benefit from discussion on topics rather than ignorance of them?

Discussion, yes. Absolutely.

Shouting matches? Not so much.

>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.

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.

That's not honest debate.

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?

Is there a meaningful and substantial difference between those two things? Both amount to "your input is not welcome here", both amount to classifying one's identity more important than the content of their speech, and the entire concept of a "safe space" is one in which mere disagreement is explicitly disallowed.

Absolutely there is a difference. If a group of women are talking about their experiences of sexism in the workplace they ought to be able to do without a man coming in and "actually"-ing them.

This set of questions is going to sound a lot more flippant than the tone it's intended to be in, but I am curious as to the answers:

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?

Attempt at an honest answer:

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).

So you advocate judging the validity of a person's points not by their content, but by their sex and race?

Classic illiberal progressivism.

Heaven forbid we judge viewpoints on their merits and not on the identity of the speaker.

More like a recognition of the concept as demonstrated and practiced.

I'm not "them" anymore but I'll try to explain what I can.

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.)

To me, as a channer, those values are "iffy".

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.

Yeah, but it also says "a safe space", obviously some rules would have to be in place for that

It doesn't say

    Embrace all viewpoints.
    Allow total freedom of expression.

There is a long tradition of seeking robust debate. There is also a long tradition of expecting some measure of decorum.

I would say the original statements and your version of the statements are the same thing. If they were not they should read as:

    Embrace some viewpoints.
    Allow some freedom of expression.

With whatever variation on the language as necessary. If the statement doesn't originally place a restriction on the idea, then it isn't necessary to specifically state there is no restriction.

Therefore, I would say that technically:

    Embrace viewpoints.
    Embrace all viewpoints.

Are, in fact, the same thing.

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.

It's a fuzzy statement of values from a corporation. Reading it as if it is a computer program is a mistake.

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).

While true, that doesn't give you license to decide the definition of their statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com