Am I missing something or is this not posted in Gaming Discussion? I mean, a videogame website did post this article but the vast majority of this discussion is not really specifically relating to gaming. It's kind of telling that one of these posts I'm quoting doesn't even realize what section this thread is actually in. Well I guess posting this here doesn't do much and notifying a mod to move this thread would be better. Or is this topic actually in the right section and my thread listing is bugged?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Destructoid] Article on Safe Spaces Completely Misses the Point
- Thread starter OniBarubary
- Start date
spons
Gold Member
That's a non-argument since you aren't offended by the color red or the number five. It's absolute nonsense.
God darn all those people being offended by vibrations transmitted through air. We need a health campaign advocating covering your ears. Problem solved!
In a lot of cases, being politically Neutral is choosing a side.
Again on the example of gay marriage: saying "I have no opinion on this" - one side will tell you "What, you're not clearly positioning yourself as pro-gay-marriage? You must be a homophobe!", the other side "What, you're not clearly posititioning yourself as contra-gay-marriage? You must be a SJW!".
So even if to you personally one side is despicable, how does that make the statement of "I have no opinion on this" choosing a side when "both sides" view you as sticking with the opposing side?
Horseticuffs
Full werewolf off the buckle
I was a HUGE fan of Sterling-Holmes era Podtoid. Their interactions were, to me, legendary. In my heart of hearts, Holmes has always been a "Lovely boy". Thoughtful, sensitive, inclusive. Hell, the man is a licensed Social Worker if memory serves.
Certainly he is more than entitled to whatever opinion he wants. I don't think anyone can cast aspersions on his intelligence. All I can say is that I'm surprised he wrote this. It doesn't seem like something he would have written. Of course, I do not personally know the man and am just projecting my presumptions onto him.
Certainly he is more than entitled to whatever opinion he wants. I don't think anyone can cast aspersions on his intelligence. All I can say is that I'm surprised he wrote this. It doesn't seem like something he would have written. Of course, I do not personally know the man and am just projecting my presumptions onto him.
That's BS, would you say the same if the topic was murder?
"I have no opinion on murder".
Being pro/contra legalizing murder is barely the same as being pro/contra gay marriage. What a bizarre comparison.
They're the same in that neither should be debatable.
Feel free to disagree here, but I think you have, or are positing, a dangerous misconception, which is that both claims on either side are valid. The reality is closer to something like: if the claim is made that "I have no opinion" in regards to something like same sex marriage, you are not taking an unbiased or neutral position. In fact, it points specifically towards an obvious bias, which is your disinterest in the given example issue. Disinterest, of course, being either evidence of or by itself, a lack of concern in regard. A lack of care.
In the case of your example of same sex marriage, could lack of care about the issue logically be called affirmation? No, I don't think so. But I do think the claim that you are against the cause specifically because of your neutrality, or lack of care, is a logically valid claim. The people who "didn't have an opinion" on same sex marriage before its legalization in the United States were on the side of inaction, of disinterest, of a lack of care. It was an implicit approval of the status quo which was against same sex marriage. That is not neutrality.
Also, I don't really understand your last claim. How could one could consider either side "despicable" and also have "no opinion"?
I think Alo0oy is right in saying that in most cases, political neutrality is choosing a side.
Says you. The European Court of Human Rights as well as still many western countries and respectively majorities of their population tend to disagree with it not being debateable. Your opinion is not above that of everyone else on this planet - the danger of someone thinking that way however is way more easily realised when you only hang around likeminded people who reinforce your and their own beliefs to a point where deviations from that are considered demagoguery. Hence the concept of "echo chambers".
Nothing, if you're ten years old.
I bet you're actually sensitive as fuck.
KillerIsJed
Member
Not the first time safe spaces has been covered on Destructoid (I wrote this)
I honestly don't even like to talk about them anymore. Everyone just says the same old things over and over of "toughen / grow / harden up and get some thicker skin" or "just mute / block people" which is them essentially siding with the toxic people and saying they should be able to 'take the first swing' before anything is done.
I don't know why so many assholes are so ready to stand up for assholes...oh wait.
I honestly don't even like to talk about them anymore. Everyone just says the same old things over and over of "toughen / grow / harden up and get some thicker skin" or "just mute / block people" which is them essentially siding with the toxic people and saying they should be able to 'take the first swing' before anything is done.
I don't know why so many assholes are so ready to stand up for assholes...oh wait.
I think by this logic you are placing completely unreasonable and unpractical expectations on every human being, because you can not expect every single human being to care about every single social or otherwise issue. If you go into a village of 100 people where nobody cares about gay rights because none of them is gay, how does it make sense to actively push them into the same camp of anti-gay people? How will those people, who, even if "they don't care" and according to you are implicit in maintaining the status quo, don't really feel any specific way("Introduce gay marriage or not, I couldn't care less!") react when confronted with such accusations? In my experience rather less than sympathic. It's this accusatory tone coupled with this "Us vs Them, nothing inbetween" mentality that can and does hatch in echo chambers.
Plenty of organizations and people accepted heinous things, like Slavery, Women's rights to own properties, the world wars, the genocide of native Americans, the ongoing genocide and displacement of Palestinians, the "War on Terror" also known as killing brown people indiscriminately...etc.
All the above cases were approved and sanctioned by "respected" organizations and a sizable portion of the population.
Yet your opinion/emotion does not go above and beyond the law and the will of the majority of people in a democratic society.
Nobody is asking you to go to the streets and make demands, you're being asked the bare minimum, which is having an opinion. Being "neutral" is refusing to even do the bare minimum.
That's why there should be laws in place to protect people from the tyranny of the majority, democracy isn't perfect.
But in regards to the village example, why should those people have an opinion when it does not affect them in any way, they are not confronted with it in any way and they don't have any base of information to make an opinion from? And where do you draw the line in regards to what topic you have to have an opinion or not? And who decides where that line is drawn?
You are free to win people over to your side and convince them of why you are correct and the others are incorrect and collect the result in a referendum or elections. "I and/or this vocal minority considers this to be morally just, therefore it is law because WE ARE RIGHT" is not how it works and thankfully we've moved beyond that.
It's a simple line, does the law infringe on another person's rights? Banning same sex marriage infringes on the rights of same sex couple.
This isn't a gray area issue like adult age of 18 vs 21.
That's not what I meant though. I meant where is the line of when people should HAVE to care and have an opinion? Again going with the 100people village example - should they have to care about homosexual rights in their country when it does not impact them in any way? Should they have to care about homosexual rights in other countries? Should they have to care about the caste system in India? Should they have to care about the mistreatment of aboriginals in Australia? Where do you draw the line and why? And who gets to draw that line? Is it fair to push someone who doesn't have an opinion because it does not affect them in any way in their life reality and their environment into the same corner as those who are staunchingly opposed to said matter? And what do you think is gained by doing that? I think you might also be overestimating how many people are actually politically active / constantly check the internet for international news / "have" such a big world.
This article is ridiculous. It seems to be calling for a space in which people can be free from moral claims about their use of language.
I also find safe spaces ridiculous and the language surrounding them like "trigger warnings" repellent. Expecting to be treated with respect shouldn't be confined to a single space. At the same time, I don't think any place should be safe from criticism, dialogue, and speech that may be found offensive (excluding direct personal attacks). The entire mess suggests that we have forgotten the purpose of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
I also find safe spaces ridiculous and the language surrounding them like "trigger warnings" repellent. Expecting to be treated with respect shouldn't be confined to a single space. At the same time, I don't think any place should be safe from criticism, dialogue, and speech that may be found offensive (excluding direct personal attacks). The entire mess suggests that we have forgotten the purpose of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Sounds like somebody who's more likely to be the source of offensive or insulting shit than the target of it.
Ah. Ad hominem.
A point of free speech and airing bad and stupid ideas is that having them out in the open allows you to kill them through argument and strengthen the principles. Bad ideas and the expression of them is not a goal in itself in the argument for free speech. Destroying bad ideas is the end to be reached by means of free speech. Silencing them does not help.
ugh...
letmetrythisname
Member
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Hope you fon't get insulted by spoken words. It's just air vibration.
I don't understand how so many people struggle with the idea of safe spaces. It's not about free speech,it's about relief and support for people who are generally mistreated,misunderstood,and persecuted for reasons outside their control. Especially in the context of higher education which is stressful enough without having to deal with all this.
for the longest time the internet was effectively a safe space for nerds.
Then individual message boards are safe spaces as they have moderation teams that cut out the shit.
Even subreddits are safe spaces as most subs have a moderation team that will remove shit posts / ban people that fuck up discussion or troll.
It's what makes the argument over safe spaces dumb. They've always existed, they are after school clubs for people that share similar interests. or your local bar/pub. they are effectively just places where generally people wont shit on you for just being you.
just because it goes over your head doesn't mean this topic isn't about the videogames industry
Then individual message boards are safe spaces as they have moderation teams that cut out the shit.
Even subreddits are safe spaces as most subs have a moderation team that will remove shit posts / ban people that fuck up discussion or troll.
It's what makes the argument over safe spaces dumb. They've always existed, they are after school clubs for people that share similar interests. or your local bar/pub. they are effectively just places where generally people wont shit on you for just being you.
just because it goes over your head doesn't mean this topic isn't about the videogames industry
Silver Arrows
Banned
Guess what? Deal with it.
If the mods see fit to keep it here, (which they have considering none of them have come by and locked it for the reason you described) then deal and ignore it. Tell a mod in PM about it if it really bothers you. Certainly would be better then an appeal to the mods.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I don't think moderation on a forum = safe space.
There are absolutely incorrect and harmful opinions, and you bet your ass I have the right to decide what is or isnt. Racist and bigoted fuckwits shouldnt be excused under the veil of "just opinions"
Well it depends on the level of moderation. but effective moderation should exist to serve the board and its users, preserve board culture etc. if there is a forum on papercraft and someone comes in and says "papercraft sucks, you are all dumb for liking papercraft" do you sit there and say "you can stay because listening to dissenting opinions is important" or do you ban the guys ass for disturbing the peace?
Nobody is saying bad ideas should never be engaged. The problem is that you don't seem to understand that there are people who deal with this shit day after day after day just by fucking living, and sometimes people need a space where they can just fucking relax for fucking once without having some douchebag in their face.
Simbabbad
Member
I'm homosexual and I find the concept of "safe spaces" to be complete lunacy. Don't pretend to talk for others.
Also, in my experience I've witnessed far more hostility in gay places (among gays) than I ever did in "standard" places, so...
You're right that I don't get it. I had very rough high school years and I could relax by being alone and reading a book. Demamding a safe space would only have aggravated the issue and worsened the abuse. That is what I seem to be seeing in response to the current demands. The need for safe spaces seems to be a short term fix that is in the long term counterproductive. But that's just a hunch.
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
I generally enjoy his contributions on Destructoid, but I don't see why he would ask for a safe space and then use a bunch of descriptors to insult the concept of it unless he's just being snarky. In which case, why post this?
ideal world long term solution is people growing to accept others and not be shitty to each other. but people are assholes, especially guarded by the anonymity of the internet so it's going to take a while. but until that happens i think it's pretty sane for people to want shelter from that in whatever form that may take.
i mean, ideally people would stop dropping bombs on each other too, but to claim we shouldn't build bomb shelters to protect ourselves from them seems a little crazy. lol
Mr_Antimatter
Member
One can have a preference for those things, and that's perfectly fine. But you can't demand, like so many gaters do, that they be banished form the media and from games themselves.
Devs and journalists have the right to use whatever inspiration or messaging they want. What GG wants is in effect, censorship of any ideas contrary to their own political ideals.
Emperor_Uriel
Member
No decent person is opposed to a place that stands up to bigotry. Holmes himself has always been a very progressive guy in that sense. What people are more concerned about is the notion that even evidence-based, valid criticisms of sensitive and controversial issues will be silenced to keep everyone feeling comfortable.
It's a big topic in the mental health field as well. We see "self-esteem" in children morphing from "your ability to cope with people being shitty towards you" to "shaky confidence formed from nobody ever being shitty to you."
As a society, we should certainly make it a goal that everyone feels safe, as in free from bodily harm or profound mental duress, everywhere. We should not, however, expect to feel comfortable everywhere we go, online and offline.
GiantBreadbug
Member
lol I would not get into this my dude; at least not with this issue.
"Gay marriage" doesn't have sides in the sense that one is right and one is wrong. Arguing against gay rights is arguing against human rights, so this one is one that's been decided already. There is no fact-based case against gay rights.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I'm not sure your anecdotal experiences of having never felt harassed in mixed company has much bearing on the pretty extensive history of gay people being harmed and persecuted in society. Especially LGBT teens, who are often terrified of hostile and homophobic family or relatives finding out they're gay. Who are often physically harmed or murdered by someone for talking about being gay.
Here's my anecdotal experience: I'm gay, and a biological parent threatened to murder me. I ended up homeless for a decade because I had nowhere else to go. Also, as a gay adult, three straight men once tried to kill me because they suspected I was gay.
I sure would have appreciated one of those lunatic, unnecessary safe spaces when I needed protection and shelter from my own parents.
Inferno313
Banned
I've been posting here since I was 16. I'm 23 now. That never existed. This totally belongs here. Discussion about the gaming community, and the politics within, are 100% within the purview of Gaming Discussion.
Sanctuary
Member
It's basically this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7U3lo80YrQ
Where you're sheltered from the harsh realities of...reality.
-Mutsukki-
Member
I don't think being inclusive, toughtful and sensitive equals agreeing with every socially inclusive concept.
I for one think that the concept of a safe space is utopic. I used to think differently, that that was a really nice way to protect people. But a lot of the time these kind of places end up being just as toxic as "non-safe spaces". You just disagree slightly with the people in it and somehow you're the devil. It ends up being an echo chamber even if they say it totally won't be. I don't think "grow a thick skin" is good advice either, however lack of opposite opinions and interactions can leave you with a completely warped view of the world, which will hit you harder than anything when it's shattered (and it will be, unless you never go and live in the real world). When that happens, it shows the worst side of people, social justice or not.
I find it to be the opposite. People who actually believe what you just said about safe spaces are the most sheltered people that never had to deal with any harsh realities in their life, judging others. Others that are affected by those harsh realities every single day.