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. 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.
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.
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.