The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[Crom Dubh]

board is private space offered as public accommodation, no? i.e., not really a public space at all?

Truth.

I can see the benefit of safe spaces, but I can also see the potential dangers: emphasizing the "in-group v. out-group" dynamic that propagates the same misunderstandings and echo chamber mentalities that lead to the situations that require "safe spaces" in the first place. I think it is beneficial that people have these spaces, but I do think that they themselves need to be used carefully, and critiqued if necessary.

[rocksniffer]

i find myself understanding the idea that abuse groups should be able to be segregated...if only because the people (women from the example) who are victims should not have to deal with members of the offending group. i believe it would inhibit their ability to share their problems openly.

...the 1st question is: do i believe that victims of racism or sexual discrimination are the same as victims of sexual or domestic violence...i think i do...for example in Karridin's situation, do i believe that she should be allowed to belong to a group organized for the explicit purpose of giving the LGBT community a safe place to discussion their specific problems free from the presence of people that represent the group that usually discriminates against them, ie. straight people.

the 2nd question is: do i believe that a public gathering should be subject to these same restrictions...no i don't...i am not a legal expert like our friends Fragile Bird, Ser Scot and sologdin, however i think that public meetings should be ...well, public. if i support the community being represented, but am not a member of that group, then i should be allowed to demonstrate that...but a public meeting and a private group are, to me, two different things...

as most of us agree, discrimination based on any physical attribute or sexual orientation is bogus, but is creating/participating in a restricted group of any kind, discrimination...i think, no it isn't...if i start a group for people that let's say enjoy sci-fi books and attend cons, is it ok to refuse admittance to people that despise sci-fi books and cons...no it isn't but if i start a public group do i have any right to refuse admittance...not so much

of course these are just the opinions of this old salty sailor...feel free to disagree...and there will be a public meeting at my local pub tomorrow to discuss my short comings...feel free to attend... ;)

:smoking:

[Galactus]

This board is a public place, yet we have threads that have been designated safe spaces and are more heavily moderated (or at least *a* thread). I support them, but them I'm a minority that feels the need for them.

No, the board isn't a public space.

[Solmyr]

Safe spaces = self segregation. There was a time when society collectively fought against segregation, be it based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation. Now we see the reverse trend - minority groups are demanding to be segregated.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to create a safe space for themselves, as long as this place isn't public of course. Our homes are considered safe spaces and they are even protected by law against certain intrusions.

However, it bothers me what effect safe spaces might have on society. Prolonged exposure to such a space cannot be healthy for a person - it distances them from society, while at the same time reinforcing some specific values or beliefs through exposure to a narrow, homogeneous(in at least 1 aspect) group of people. I fail to see how this would aid the development of the person in the long term. Then again, it probably depends on the mentality of the person in question.

P.S. And yes, the board isn't a public space ;).

[Arkhangel]

Safe spaces = self segregation. There was a time when society collectively fought against segregation, be it based on race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation. Now we see the reverse trend - minority groups are demanding to be segregated.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to create a safe space for themselves, as long as this place isn't public of course. Our homes are considered safe spaces and they are even protected by law against certain intrusions.

However, it bothers me what effect safe spaces might have on society. Prolonged exposure to such a space cannot be healthy for a person - it distances them from society, while at the same time reinforcing some specific values or beliefs through exposure to a narrow, homogeneous(in at least 1 aspect) group of people. I fail to see how this would aid the development of the person in the long term. Then again, it probably depends on the mentality of the person in question.

P.S. And yes, the board isn't a public space ;).

To combine these two thoughts - the effect of spending 'too much' time in safe spaces and online safe spaces - what about people who spend a large amount of their time engaging with specific, safe and supportive but fairly insular online communities like Tumblr? Does that affect them, for better or worse?

[Solmyr]

To combine these two thoughts - the effect of spending 'too much' time in safe spaces and online safe spaces - what about people who spend a large amount of their time engaging with specific, safe and supportive but fairly insular online communities like Tumblr? Does that affect them, for better or worse?

I think online safe spaces are a thing, much more so than actual safe spaces in real life. The ease of access combined with the increased time spent online makes them awfully convenient.

How it affects people is a very complicated question. To begin with, most people who frequent the internet, are exposed to a wide variety of websites, comments and opinions. The manner in which these opinions are perceived and weighed is subject to individual bias. As an example, we could have 2 people, who each read a liberal and a conservative discussion board. One might agree with the opinions of the liberal board, while spending his time laughing at and ridiculing those on the conservative; the other vice versa.

To take this one step further, certain people might purposefully seek unsafe spaces, primarily online, to escape the vacuum of their safe space environment in real life and discover a more balanced range of opinions about controversial topics.

Personally I prefer to use the internet as an unsafe space. It is less regulated, which makes it more diverse. Moreover, the ease of access allows you to easily meet interlocutors and opinions, whom you'd have difficulty finding in real life.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Couldn't the group just organize as a club and have their meetings

as "members only"?

It doesn't seem like too difficult a hurdle to manage that way.

As for people objecting to the groups excluding

people.....isn't that something frats and sororities do regularly?

[Theda Baratheon]

To combine these two thoughts - the effect of spending 'too much' time in safe spaces and online safe spaces - what about people who spend a large amount of their time engaging with specific, safe and supportive but fairly insular online communities like Tumblr? Does that affect them, for better or worse?

I have been using Tumblr since I turned 16; so coming up to about 5 years and it has plenty of problems and good things.

Pro: It offers lots of good information and awareness to younger people.

Con: a lot of information is NOT sourced and is completely taken out of context or outright LIED about.

Pro: can feel like an accepting place for young queer people, people of colour etc

Con: also breeds toxicity towards others. For example "hahahhaa all men are garbage" written by some 16 yr old to get thousands of notes because that sort of sentiment is cool now. Or "im so depressed writes the 14 year old white girl on her pale grunge blog" which is just sort of dismissive of mental illness.

Pro: tumblr SEEMS to care a lot about mental illness.

Con: they only care about their cute, romanticised version of depression where they stay in bed eating pizza and watching netflix for FUNZ and not bcus they havent done the dishes in days, cant bring themselves to make a meal and get out of bed.

HOWEVER the website has some great individuals who make quality posts and try to promote awareness BUT the tumblr "communities" and "safe spaces" are often very toxic. I'm a white cis girl so it is NOT my place to talk over people in their respective tumblr spaces but some of them are just plain fckin NASTY.

i think this is where the "social justice warrior" insult comes from; because a few teenagers aren't that mature and some are very very passionate but just don't have enough info or refined debating skills yet so its easy to mock them.

Whereas when people bring that sort of insult here it just doesn't work, this forum is a MUCH different community and environment than places like tumblr.

If it's a PUBLIC space then I don't believe in excluding people. HOWEVER; I believe people running that event can make it clear that it's not a space for certain people to accuse or argue or even speak about issues and that certain people should remain as observers only. I have no problem with that though some may believe that would "limit a discussion" i just think for example that white people dont have the right to speak over a person of colours experience with racism from white people but i also believe anyone of any race, gender, sexual orientation etc should be able to at least attend the PUBLIC events as observers and listen to the experiences of others.

when people shut away others no good can happen BUT no good happens when those with privilege speak over and ignore the words, experiences and opinions of others.

[The Killer Snark]

I agree with all of that, but I think that some limited discussion on a public forum level after speakers have made their main points is democratically healthy, so long as the person holding a differing opinion is non hostile and so long as the crowd aren't hostile towards them. That's really the only way to combat insulated opinions. All safe spaces I've come across on the Internet whether they serve authoritarian Right or Far Left interests have been hives of prejudice and propaganda. Sensible discussion is completely done away with when opposing arguments are suppressed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Among the things I've noticed about people on the Far Right and Evangelical Christians who are difficult to take is that they insulate themselves from contrary opinions. Thus, when they are presented with contrary opinions they are dismayed; they don't understand where those opinions could have come from. Part of the reason I've been posting here for 12 years is that I'm frequently exposed to people with opinions that are very different from mine. It is the opposite of insulating myself from contrary opinions.

I can understand why individuals might choose to seek out "safe spaces". It is very comforting to have such a space. However, existing only in such "safe spaces" is, in my opinion, likely to be detrimental to those who exist there exclusively in the long run.

[Arkhangel]

I suppose another question would be what kind of groups are entitled to safe spaces. If PUAs want a place where they can talk about how much they've been victimised by women without any women present, are they entitled to that? How do you decide whose safe space should be respected and whose should be challenged?

[emberling]

"Sensible discussion" is often exactly the problem. Everyone has their own definition of what's sensible. You toss in a bunch of people who are fine with the status quo, who are never personally impacted by the issue at hand - you give them microphones because God forbid there be one place, anywhere, where they are not able to speak over others - that's not going to end well for anyone except the people afraid to change. These are our #notallmen's, our #AllLivesMatter's, our "equalism"s, our color blindness, frantically dialing back discourses, replacing protests with platitudes. Platitudes are sensible.

Banning white people is pretty out there though; that goes beyond what a safe space should usually be. There's usually a handful of cis people at any trans groups I go to, a handful of straight people at gay ones. But they know better than to put forth opposing arguments, ugh. I mean, this sounds like a support group, basically - it's not clear but it sounds like it's for students to tell their experiences. Arguing anything with anyone at an event like that would be way out of line.

[Galactus]

"Sensible discussion" is often exactly the problem. Everyone has their own definition of what's sensible. You toss in a bunch of people who are fine with the status quo, who are never personally impacted by the issue at hand - you give them microphones because God forbid there be one place, anywhere, where they are not able to speak over others - that's not going to end well for anyone except the people afraid to change. These are our #notallmen's, our #AllLivesMatter's, our "equalism"s, our color blindness, frantically dialing back discourses, replacing protests with platitudes. Platitudes are sensible.

Banning white people is pretty out there though; that goes beyond what a safe space should usually be. There's usually a handful of cis people at any trans groups I go to, a handful of straight people at gay ones. But they know better than to put forth opposing arguments, ugh. I mean, this sounds like a support group, basically - it's not clear but it sounds like it's for students to tell their experiences. Arguing anything with anyone at an event like that would be way out of line.

It should be noted that the people in question were journalism students. (so presumably they weren't there to argue but to document) Now, there is an argument for allowing privacy on some types of gathering, but the "They'll disrupt the meeting" is well... Probably not a consideration. (though the usual questions of anonymity, etc. still apply ofc.)

[Theda Baratheon]

I totally agree with you, emberling.

I believe anyone should be allowed to attend public events, however; like I said I'm completely okay with events being catered to certain people and asking others to merely remain in the role of observers unless specifically asked to give their opinions.

Killer Snark; you have to understand that there is ALWAYS going to be that person, or a few people who believe they're just soooo original and genuinely believe they're being sensible and logical when they push their way into a space not meant for them and talk OVER others.

I haven't read the article actually, I should probably do that now. But I don't believe in excluding people because they're white; it sounds as though they were there to observe and as Galactus said to document, which seems perfectly reasonable to me and it seems very unreasonable to exclude them if that's all they were there to do. However, like I said, have no problem with just asking certain people not to speak over others.

[Castel]

I haven't read the article actually, I should probably do that now. But I don't believe in excluding people because they're white; it sounds as though they were there to observe and as Galactus said to document, which seems perfectly reasonable to me and it seems very unreasonable to exclude them if that's all they were there to do. However, like I said, have no problem with just asking certain people not to speak over others.

Question: what happens if they document, go and do the sort of thing you're talking about except without the fear of being challenged since they're the journalists?

Would people still feel that its a safe space then?

[Athias]

It's a bit hypocritical isn't it? To have an event that facilitates the exchange of personal anecdotes about facing racism and discrimination, and then, exclude two students on a prejudice--informed by their skin color--is counterintuitive.

This notion of being able to have a "safe space" seems eerily similar to having protected echochambers. It's fine, as long as you have the exclusive right or an owner's proxy to use said space as you wish--in which case my thoughts would mirror Nestor's.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Journalist defends excluding people from public spaces:

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6897176

From the article:

Instead of focusing on why those students were asked to leave, we should be thinking about the history of oppression that makes these kinds of groups and these kinds of places so very important. We should be focusing on how to be aware and respectful of the rights of both the press and marginalized groups. We have to find a way to coexist peacefully.

The West has a history of oppressing people of colour: from Africans who were enslaved and brought to the New World, to native people whose land was stolen by Europeans. This kind of oppression is still witnessed today, in the way the black community is treated in the United States, in the state of African nations trying to recover from the collapse of the previous colonial rule, and in the continuing struggles of indigenous peoples.

White people may experience occasional and unacceptable prejudice, but not racism. They do not experience the systemic racism that makes it hard for them to find jobs, housing, health care and justice in the legal system.

Racism is not personal, it is structural. Unlike the arena of mainstream media, the educational system, religious institutions and judicial systems that reinforce hurtful stereotypes, these spaces remind the oppressed that they are human, that they deserve respect.

She is quite eloquent but is she not defending pre-judging individuals based upon their appearance? Or, is there a legitimate point to be made that some people cannot speak freely while in the presence of others they see as "oppressors"?

[Arkhangel]

That's the same article as linked to and quoted from in the OP.

[Larry of the Lawn]

She is quite eloquent but is she not defending pre-judging individuals based upon their appearance? Or, is there a legitamate point to be made that some people cannot speak freely while in the presence of other's they see as "oppressors"?

I think it's a legitimate point, although ideally if you want to restrict access don't have a public meeting. If you're sitting there being monitored by someone that is an outsider, I doubt if you'll be as open as you could be. Why would you share something that is difficult to share in public, in public? It works the other way too. I mean, my dad and his friends make racist jokes all the time, but never in front of someone who belongs to the race they're offending.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Arkhangel,

Sorry, didn't realize that.