cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/2421185
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.
Unfortunately, a lot of these safe spaces become echo chambers. People don't want to have their views challenged or try to see things from other perspectives. Many attempts at constructive dissent as mentioned in this post are discouraged and are generally unwelcome.
When I say "constructive dissent" I mean building on top of someone else ideas not just pointing out flaws in their ideas. I think that if someone suggested something that made the idea better people would be more than happy to take that and roll with it.
I understand the concept. I'm saying that this way of working creates echo chambers.
Imagine you're trying to organize people to throw a party, and you have somebody come in who wants to argue that parties are evil because they distract people from glorifying God. Should you hear this person out and engage them in conversation? Or just block them?
This is a very extreme example. I'm saying that more nuanced discussion and differences in views from within a community struggle in safe spaces.
Do you have an example?
What do you think would be a good way to make sure that they are less likely to become echo chambers or do you think this way of interacting is doomed to make them echo chambers?
I think we need to either redefine safe spaces, change people's expectations of them, or get rid of them entirely.
What does a safe space mean to you and how would you redefine it? What expectations do you think people have of safe spaces and in what ways should they change?
FYI: sorry for asking a lot of questions. I am trying to get a better sense of what you think could be done to improve these ideas.
“Constructive dissent” can occur in safe spaces. What’s unwelcome is unconstructive dissent.
I think the idea that people should have their views challenged all (or even most) of the time is pretty silly.
Who said anything about challenging views all or most of the time?
The issue with constructive dissent is that if someone perceives an initial idea as bad, it cannot be dismissed or criticised; it has to be built on. Do we want things to be built on flawed foundations? We should be able to say "no" without being cast out from our own community.
Isn't this what safe spaces are for though? Developing ideas and emotions without fear of normie criticism. You can talk about your private political issues and thoughts (what it's like being trans, how to properly do socialism) without judgment or needing to explain yourself to outsiders.
If you disagree with the basis for the safe space though (trans liberation, Communism reading circle, etc.) then of course you won't be welcome there.
If an initial idea is bad it should be possible to choose not to build on top of those ideas and instead build on top of ideas that you think are better. When someone presents a bad idea it's ok to not agree with it but just saying no can cause the other person to feel like they aren't valued and are less likely to introduce their new ideas.
Edit emphasis on just. Also, I agree that just disagreeing shouldn't be enough to kick you out of the community. It is excessive disagreement (so much that it stops all other conversations) is what can be an issue.
Sure, small groups of closed-minded people can easily become echo chambers. For everyone else, safe spaces can be a way to support thoughts or feelings that may not otherwise be expressed and discussed. I guess the question becomes “What percentage of safe spaces are made up of mostly close-minded people?” If you assume that most people are close-minded, then you are correct.