Safe spaces are places that help build community and support between people that are marginalized in wider society (like LGBTQ+, African/Native/Asian Americans, autistic people, etc.)
In our day and age this is necessary because the wider world can be hostile to ideas and behaviours that push against the social norm. These ideas and behaviours that are expressed in these communities are, almost by definition, actively pushing against the social norm and trying to advocate for new and better social norms.
The way that these ideas are attacked can either be direct or indirect in their nature but all of the attacks essentially boils down to unhelpful criticism of the core idea.
For example, if someone made a comment about LGBTQ+ rights and how they need to be advocated more in general society but then someone else comes along and questions whether or not there is any fundamental inequality between LGBTQ+ people and wider society they are implicitly stifling conversation through questioning the core premise of inequality which stops further conversation.
Criticism can be great and help expose weaknesses in initial ideas but at the same time, it also can end up stifling creativity and discussion when people don’t feel emotionally safe sharing their views with others in the community.
This is exactly why ideas can be fragile. Even great ideas and behaviours can end up being forgotten or abandoned because people excessively criticize them without actually developing them further.
This is why safe spaces are important to help nurture and build ideas/behaviours that otherwise would have a hard time gaining traction and help develop them so they become more resilient.
So how do we balance the need for critique and support in communities?
I think a good way of doing this would be to encourage constructive dissent - disagreeing in ways that help build on top of an idea instead of directly stifling it.
This is done by accepting the core premise from the person you are talking to and finding ways to make the idea/behaviour they presented better.
This is exactly why in improv it is important to have the attitude of “Yes, and” because otherwise the scene won’t go anywhere and will either be stuck or completely dissolve.
Takeaway:
We need more communities where ideas can be built on top of each other instead of just being beaten down.
A private forum, a nonfederated Lemmy instance, or a heavily moderated Lemmy instance: the small community safe spaces where people can test ideas without the entire fediverse interjecting
I agree with your general premise that safe spaces are necessary for allowing ideas to develop. I think they’re also necessary for giving people a place to simply exist without their existence being questioned or threatened.
However, I don’t know that I agree with your proposal to avoid echo chambers by encouraging “yes and”-style responses. The sort of person who accepts the core premise of these ideas and wants to improve them can probably already communicate their ideas/criticisms without violating the safe space.
A bad faith actor could always use “yes and” as a means to promote a slippery slope argument that seeks to invalidate the original idea. And there are certainly some ideas that would be dangerous to add on to.
A side note, if you’re interested in discussing how to create a supportive online space, you may want to check out beehaw.org if you haven’t already. They’re a lemmy instance that defederated with lemmy.world, but I believe they’re still federated with your instance. Before they defederated with us, I was able to read a series of lengthy posts by one of their admins describing their moderation philosophy- specifically how it evolved over the years as they tried to create a safe community in other sites and what they settled on for beehaw.org. It was really interesting, and their conclusion was that the only way to create a safe community was to proactively moderate, warning and banning users before they cross a line. Reactive moderation (removing/banning posts and users after they do something offensive) still allows for the negative post to impact the community before it’s removed. They also believe that having clearly defined rules doesn’t work since trolls just learn to work within them while still achieving their goals.
Their moderation style requires a lot of work to implement, but it definitely achieved the results they wanted. The beehaw communities were very friendly and users seemed more open with each other.
I actually cross-posted this post into Beehaw’s chat community, but thanks for the suggestion.
Also, in an online forum at least, it is really hard to decipher intent so the actual content of the text matters a lot. so communicating criticisms without adding anything more than that just leads to the conversation not going anywhere.
PS: In a slightly unrelated question why did you decide to stay on lemmy.world since it seems like you might want to discuss with the Beehaw community as well?
I actually cross-posted this post into Beehaw’s chat community, but thanks for the suggestion.
Ah, I guess I can’t see that from lemmy.world haha
Also, in an online forum at least, it is really hard to decipher intent so the actual content of the text matters a lot. so communicating criticisms without adding anything more than that just leads to the conversation not going anywhere.
That’s fair. I would hope that someone who has a genuine constructive criticism would be able to communicate it, but it might not hurt to have a rule reminding them to acknowledge and affirm the core concept before providing criticism. I can see how someone being a little curt and just voicing the criticism might come across as being anti- whatever the topic is.
PS: In a slightly unrelated question why did you decide to stay on lemmy.world since it seems like you might want to discuss with the Beehaw community as well?
When I joined lemmy I was looking for a general purpose instance - one where I could be a member in a variety of communities. At the time the largest communities actually tended to be on beehaw as they had been around much longer, but lemmy.world grew fast. By the time beehaw defederated with lemmy.world, it was clear that if I wanted to join a discussion on a recent news/politics/science article it would be best to choose a lemmy.world community as they were the most active.
No disrespect to the folks at beehaw, I may still make an alt account there. I appreciate what they’ve built, but it wasn’t the best fit for what I was looking to join. Ideally I’d be able to participate in their communities with this account, but I totally understand why they defederated with lemmy.world.
That’s fair. I would hope that someone who has a genuine constructive criticism would be able to communicate it, but it might not hurt to have a rule reminding them to acknowledge and affirm the core concept before providing criticism. I can see how someone being a little curt and just voicing the criticism might come across as being anti- whatever the topic is.
They don’t necessarily have to outright right say I agree with the core concept in every comment but instead they could add on to what is being said. For example, if someone came to me with real criticism about an idea I had but didn’t at least try to offer anything on how to make the idea better it can come across in an online forum as being contrarian or argumentative instead of constructive.
No disrespect to the folks at beehaw, I may still make an alt account there. I appreciate what they’ve built, but it wasn’t the best fit for what I was looking to join. Ideally I’d be able to participate in their communities with this account, but I totally understand why they defederated with lemmy.world.
That’s fine but I mean why not join an instance that is federated with both of them?
Edit: wording
Inertia, I guess?
I have another account on lemm.ee which is federated with both, but I’ve been using this as my main since I joined lemmy. I might have to check out how things are on the other side of the fence.
Is your house a safe space? I don’t get it. Are you trying to make a space in society to exclude those that think differently? Does that mean you’re okay with spaces that exclude lgbtq+? Should we all make little bubbles with labels that we all feel comfortable in, that way we can hear our groups echos louder?
It isn’t about creating a space in society that excludes those that think differently (diversity of thought is good) but rather allowing ideas from people that are marginalized to develop and grow without constant criticism which can be tiring and excessive for the people that are fending them off. There are times and places when both are important and how it is implemented is the key aspect of whether it becomes an echo chamber or something that makes the ideas in that community better.
I like how this is the top comment. A bunch of people who can’t freaking read.
Are you trying to make a space in society to exclude those that think differently?
The answer to this is in the post, which I haven’t even read fully:
The way that these ideas are attacked can either be direct or indirect in their nature but all of the attacks essentially boils down to unhelpful criticism of the core idea.
No, it’s not about “excluding those that think differently”. It’s about excluding those that attack core ideas in a way that isn’t helpful.
Does that mean you’re okay with spaces that exclude lgbtq+?
In a sense, OP must necessarily be okay with this. Right-wing safe spaces like Twitter are just as valuable as…uhh…idk…gender studies classes. In either case, the entire point is to
help nurture and build ideas/behaviours that otherwise would have a hard time gaining traction and help develop them so they become more resilient.
So, it’s funny when you say this:
Should we all make little bubbles with labels that we all feel comfortable in, that way we can hear our groups echos louder?
That sentiment is brought into the mainstream from safe spaces where critical thinking and basic reading comprehension are in short supply. Your entire argument is a straw man that doesn’t even address the core idea, but straw mans it as labeled comfortability bubbles for echo chambers. I’m not sure what rule #2 “Be respectful” means exactly, but not fairly considering a well thought out argument should be a violation of it.
Wtf are you talking about? Twitter is a safe space now? You want a safe space, make a discord and invite only your friends… Where are you going where you feel so attacked?
Wtf are you talking about?
Well, I’m glad you concede the point that your reading comprehension is abysmal by…checks notes…demonstrating it again.
Where are you going where you feel so attacked?
I’m a glutton for punishment, actually. I read absolute shit like the Daily Signal because I genuinely find it interesting for so many reasons. I like existing in echo chambers that are diametrically opposed to my ideals. Unlike the soulless, hateful right-wing assholes I spend my time studying, I’m reminded that other people exist and they disagree with me vehemently on some things, but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid, misled, or however Democrats explain Trump-loving Republicans.
Matter of fact, if you have any recommendations, please let me know.
You’re like a broken llm. How do you type so much without saying anything? I have no idea why you’re ranting about republicans and shit. You haven’t even addressed my points. This is about “safe spaces” which is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. Your house is safe, is the coffee shop dangerous? Is your discord group dangerous? Are you just attacked by everyone around you wherever you go? I think you’d be surprised to know, most people don’t give a shit what you are.
“safe spaces” are building a bunch of timid cowards who can’t face their problems head-on.
You just had an entire month whereby every organization, TV station, brand, website, channel, and entity known to man supported your cause and your safe spaces.
Enough already. Where’s the safe spaces for conservatives?
Churches? Nazi bars? Prison?
So much for safe spaces and tolerance! You all just know hate and get what you get. “Conform or die!”
Nah