Hacker News Reader

Comment by jklinger410 | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com