Support NeoGAF

[Sianos]

Utterly wrong, opinions can be and are wrong all the time. This is the definition of "opinion" by Merriam-Wester:

Basically everything you think, from whether your shoelaces are tied to how life came to be on Earth, is an opinion. Some may be easier to verify than others, but the virtual majority of them either are true or not. I think the word you are looking for is not "opinion", but "preference".

In any case, you should always avoid using "per definition" as an argument.

Excellent recommendation; everyone should read that link. In fact, everyone really should read the entire "Human's Guide to Words"

 

[Deleted member 465307]

In a perfect world, safe spaces shouldn't have to exist.

In our world, I can see why in some places it's done as a last resort.

You definitely do run the risk of shielding yourself from dissenting opinions, and that can cause problems later in life when you're placed in a situation where you have no choice but to confront an opposing opinion, and don't know how to correctly handle that situation, but safe spaces as they are used right now are a "we don't have any other option" situation where getting the culture of hate to stop isn't going to happen any time soon, and not everyone has the strength to withstand it day after day in the hopes that one day it'll get better.



I think the problem people have with safe spaces, even if they do not intend to be, is that they do infact form an echo chamber of opinions. And you may see that these opinions as things that are universally true (aka, you're not going to hell for being gay). But there are still going to be some parts of the world that don't see it that way.

And once you leave the wonder and protection of university, where will your safe space be? How prepared are the people who regularly turn to safe spaces to deal with those who disagree with them, even if it's something as insane as thinking you're go to hell just for being yourself?

I get why safe spaces exist, and I lament the reason why they have to exist in the first place, but I wonder long term how well it prepares people to deal with the outside world.

To address your question of where the safe space will be, I think the answer is typically your circle of friends or your chosen family that you spend much of your free time with. I don't think "safe spaces" are really anything new because they typically guarantee that someone is not going to challenge, condemn, or criticize some immutable aspect of yourself. Does anyone have in their circle of friends someone who talks to them in that way? Don't people typically not maintain a friendship with people who make them continually feel "less than"? I'm not talking about political differences like public spending or how public transportation should be developed. I'm talking about not being friends with people who feel they're superior to you. Don't people naturally shape their social circle with that in mind or subconsciously? Furthermore, just as another example, when deciding where to live, I know some people in the United States already consider not wanting to live in certain regions because of the political climate or social beliefs of the area (e.g., "liberal fruity/nutty California," "the backwards South," etc.). I think people naturally already cluster into "safe spaces."

I think the only difference is that now certain amounts of property and private spaces are being dedicated to it in formal ways, while before it was kind of unspoken or labeled differently when it came to who was allowed where. For example, think of birthday parties and weddings. Those invitation lists are doing a weeding process, but it's presented differently as just being "only friends" and then people who were not invited are often kept out and kicked out. But as I alluded to before, who are the people invited? I have to imagine you don't invite a person who condemns or hates you to your birthday party or your wedding (ignoring any crazy family members, of course, who probably aren't going to be at your birthday party and will only be spoken to for 20 seconds at your wedding), so I believe you've just made a makeshift "safe space."

I think the issues you raise are valid if people lived in safe spaces their entire lives and then were suddenly thrust into the world. However, people don't grow up with safe spaces and they don't live 24/7 in safe spaces while attending college/university (classes, bars, dorms, etc.), so I think most people know how to cope once they leave. Plus, they have their friends, just like everyone else, and thus a new safe space to enjoy. Ideally, as I think you alluded to, everyone will be able to enjoy "safe spaces," the kind I'm talking about, everywhere someday.

 

[Dalibor68]

There is also a reason why some western countries have hate speech laws.

Yes, in regards to publicly inciting hatred. A protest of people shouting/holding posters with "Safe the Marriage" or "Marriage is for Men and Women!" does not fall under that definition and even less so such opinions of individuals. Shouting "Kill the Gays!" does.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I'm just saying it's not difficult at all to see which kind of parade is okay and which one is not. Maybe you have the right to protest against black people, but that wouldn't mean it's fine, and it'd be odd to treat this as a conflict with two sides since only one side is being hateful.

But he never said that the protest was okay or not okay.

He was strictly addressing the group's right to have such a protest.

 

[Messofanego]

Okay but that's accepting that it can never get better. I'm not a Dean, so I won't be doing any social experiments on this, but I don't agree with this reason for safe spaces no more than I think males and females should be separated in primary and secondary education. The University can try to agree on social policies and find any student in breach of them to have committed an offense. At least, this is how society has been built up until this point. Segregation will mean that when these students go out of the University and into the world, one side won't be ready to face life without safe spaces, and the other wouldn't have learned how not to treat people.

Anyway those are my two cents. I don't know how bad things are supposed to get in the US, but yeah, it sounds like a very strange requirement for something that it's likely to make worse.

You make it sound like safe spaces means minorities go to totally different schools instead of just spaces in the same place where they can hang out and chill with other minorities. Safe spaces doesn't mean you spend all your time there.

When I go to the gym for friday prayer, that's my "safe space" to hang out with other muslims and talk muslim stuff for like 30min that co-workers might not understand or need a lot of explaining. I'm not segregating myself. They're a nice bonus, pretty sure people can live without safe spaces and have for centuries when they used to be raided on or made illegal.

 

[Izuna]

You make it sound like safe spaces means minorities go to totally different schools instead of just spaces in the same place where they can hang out and chill with other minorities. Safe spaces doesn't mean you spend all your time there.

When I go to the gym for friday prayer, that's my "safe space" to hang out with other muslims and talk muslim stuff for like 30min that co-workers might not understand or need a lot of explaining. I'm not segregating myself. They're a nice bonus, pretty sure people can live without safe spaces and have for centuries when they used to be raided on or made illegal.

That sounds fine and great. But whenever safe spaces gets brought up it sounds like it's referring to something much more extreme. Because what you describe is something we've always had.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Yes, in regards to publicly inciting hatred. A protest of people shouting/holding posters with "Safe the Marriage" or "Marriage is for Men and Women!" does not fall under that definition and even less so such opinions of individuals. Shouting "Kill the Gays!" does.

I consider trying to deny other people human rights an act of hatred. We can disagree though.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

That sounds fine and great. But whenever safe spaces gets brought up it sounds like it's referring to something much more extreme. Because what you describe is something we've always had.

I think you're very close to a realization.

 

[ShironRedshift]

What constitutes an "attack"? Unless they do something that's against the law (like registering a protest called "Kill the Gays!"), they have every right to protest. And you have every right to counter-protest in a positive way, which is usually what happens here at least.

Perfect case for why people feel the need to have a"safe space" to just chill or focus on stuff that actually matters. Instead of dealing with every single wiseass who wants to get into a semantics debate over what's an attack or what's not, or what's an insult and what's not, trying to collectively come up with solutions to raise awareness if the problems they face and make a difference, or just being able to relax without having to constantly explain why a certain remark hurts them to every single last person who asks and start at the beginning each and every time and instead have so much as a brief moment where they can so much as just talk to people who have gone through the same thing and innately understand instead of attacking the and questioning them for the way they ask.

Just so much as having a brief breather from all that and having a place where they're free and comfortable to be themselves for at least part of the day isn't an unreasonable request, is it? Or is the world truly so terrible that you feel it is? I would surely hope not and if so I just feel pity for you that your view us truly that bleak.

 

[Dalibor68]

I consider trying to deny other people human rights an act of hatred. We can disagree though.

Gay marriage is not universally a human right, in Europe anyways. (And before you get the wrong idea, I'm pro gay-marriage)

 

[Weltall Zero]

Excellent recommendation; everyone should read that link. In fact, everyone really should read the entire "Human's Guide to Words"

Thanks! People should indeed read more LessWrong in general.

I just wanna talk about videogames...

Which is why you clicked in a thread about safe spaces. Makes sense.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Congratulations. You're completely free to do it.

You didn't even have to come to this thread you know. There are plenty of threads where you can only discuss about videogames.

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but seriously.

Who is stopping you?

Not saying I'm prohibited, it's just these topics make my head spin.

It's like I missed a huge crisis of awareness where everything turned to shit and nobody noticed/said anything until the recent boom.

I need to keep watching what I say and how I say it, especially in threads like these, because more and more a lot of "harmless" vernacular is getting me in shit.

I know I'm not a bigot/misogynist/etc, but my ignorance of these finer details paints me in a pretty shitty picture most times.

 

[sonicmj1]

See this is where I get confused. A community or place of healing as such is a great thing. No one can walk into an AA meeting and act like a prat, because they will be excused, nor should they want to.

But at the same time, if someone acts that same way which is unacceptable outside of the AA meeting, they should still be (in a University environment) punished.

Clubs etc. are already exclusive. I think of the typical US high school movie where people sit down in different groups. As if there was an LGBT table. If someone harasses that table then they should get in trouble. Anything that isn't against school policy or just common morality, wouldn't fly anywhere.

I think I need to see an example of someone triggering or harassing and yet somehow won't face disciplinary action. I can't really think of much.

Just to stick with the alcoholism analogy, there are people who don't take addiction or mental illness seriously. They might not see why it's so hard to swear off of alcohol when they have no problem throwing back a beer or two now and then and that's it. That's not aggressive or harassing speech, but what does being dismissive do for people who have a hard time dealing with these problems? It further encourages people to be silent, isolating them from their community.

Alcoholics Anonymous does both closed meetings (our "safe space" analogy) and open meetings where anyone can attend, so there can be uses for both.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I consider trying to deny other people human rights an act of hatred. We can disagree though.

the conversation was about safe spaces outside of the private sector and by extension involved hate speech laws which do not cover protests. What you personally consider an act of hatred is irrelevant.

When you say things like the bolded you are inserting your own assumption (that the poster with which you are conversing is in favor of said protests) in order to discredit their opinion (by means of accusing them of having a regressive view of human rights). Don't remove nuance from the conversation, Garrett. It poisons the well. Someone can talk about an issue and even have disagreements with you about it without being an enemy. Clearing up misunderstanding without misrepresentation of others' opinions is in everybody's benefit.

 

[ishibear]

Sometimes people just want to talk to and engage with people like themselves to avoid the stress, harassment and scrutiny they endure everywhere else.

I fail to see how anyone could find that ridiculous.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

the conversation was about safe spaces outside of the private sector and by extension involved hate speech laws which do not cover protests. What you personally consider an act of hatred is irrelevant.

When you say things like the bolded you are inserting your own assumption (that the poster with which you are conversing is in favor of said protests) in order to discredit their opinion (by means of accusing them of having a regressive view of human rights). Don't remove nuance from the conversation, Garrett. It poisons the well. Someone can talk about an issue and even have disagreements with you about it without being an enemy. Clearing up misunderstanding without misrepresentation of others' opinions is in everybody's benefit.

Gay marriage is not universally a human right, in Europe anyways. (And before you get the wrong idea, I'm pro gay-marriage)

Sorry if it came across as snarky, it wasn't intended to be. I was just trying to excuse myself from the conversation, and in doing so it seems that I was accusatory. Sorry again.

 

[mollipen]

Safe spaces are places for marginalised people to gather amongst themselves. People outside the group may be welcome at the discretion of the in-group with the understanding that they are guests and might be asked to leave particularly if they are just there to concern troll or start an argument.

And you're saying that isn't how the entirety of the forum works at this point? The rules of what is and isn't accepted are pretty much universal across the board, and not focused specifically on those community threads. You'll get banned just as quick for saying negative things about trans people (for example) in a regular thread as you would the TransGAF thread—with the difference possibly being how soon your comment is noticed.

If anything, I'd say those threads are more about "on topic" and less "safe space". Safe spaces are places where the rules and expectations for how you act are specifically altered from the norm.

 

[Messofanego]

I know I'm not a bigot/misogynist/etc, but my ignorance of these finer details paints me in a pretty shitty picture most times.

But how do others know that you're not? You can make yourself out to be the best and kindest person in the world in your head, but you can't control how others perceive you.

If someone said that something I did came across as misogynist/sexist/racist, I'd preferably rather understand it from their perspective instead of getting defensive that I know I'm not a bad person because that just puts me into a hole that I'll keep on digging deeper and deeper as I'm not willing to show empathy for why others are taking offence. If a behaviour to someone else is so close to someone actually using that behaviour for purposely intentioned harm, I don't blame them for equating my ignorance to the real thing. They can't mind-read that you're not a bigot/misogynist/etc. That's why intent can fall by the wayside, because I can't control others' perceptions.

Therefore, as a famous rapper once said, it's better to check yourself before you wreck yourself because you can't control the narrative after it's out of your head.

 

[Cynn]

So tell me, do you want Destructoid to become a "safe space", where you do not have to run the risk of feeling challenged, criticized, or potentially made to feel less than perfect?

There's no way that's not satire. No. way.

 

[Coffee Dog]

And you're saying that isn't how the entirety of the forum works at this point? The rules of what is and isn't accepted are pretty much universal across the board, and not focused specifically on those community threads. You'll get banned just as quick for saying negative things about trans people (for example) in a regular thread as you would the TransGAF thread—with the difference possibly being how soon your comment is noticed.

If anything, I'd say those threads are more about "on topic" and less "safe space". Safe spaces are places where the rules and expectations for how you act are specifically altered from the norm.

At this point, you can't say anything outright bad about minorities, no, but there's a large difference in how much you can get away with implying, especially if other posters are slacking and fail to dogpile. Exactly 0% is allowed to slide in designated community threads.

 

[Mman235]

The fabricated "safe space" outrage is so obnoxiously transparent at this point. Things like groups solely for addicts or people with physical and mental ailments have been openly around for ages, but then a bunch of people coincidentally get mad when attention is given to optional spaces for women, racial minorities, and trans people (this is setting aside that they've been around for ages anyway, of course).

The only silver lining is the hilariously blatant hypocrisy of it all. Given it's a bunch of people outraged about not have a safe space to spout hateful opinions and getting triggered at the idea of a space they can't take over.

 

[EmiPrime]

And you're saying that isn't how the entirety of the forum works at this point? The rules of what is and isn't accepted are pretty much universal across the board, and not focused specifically on those community threads. You'll get banned just as quick for saying negative things about trans people (for example) in a regular thread as you would the TransGAF thread—with the difference possibly being how soon your comment is noticed.

If anything, I'd say those threads are more about "on topic" and less "safe space". Safe spaces are places where the rules and expectations for how you act are specifically altered from the norm.

I disagree, there is a big distinction. There are very different expectations of behaviour and who the participants in a conversation are in those community threads as opposed to other threads that might broach topics that are related to those groups. A safe space is by and for a marginalised group where they can be the sole or dominant voice and those outside that group may not be welcome, as such the dynamics are very different to a moderated space in which all are welcome but have to adhere to rules of conduct.

 

[Jebusman]

And you're saying that isn't how the entirety of the forum works at this point? The rules of what is and isn't accepted are pretty much universal across the board, and not focused specifically on those community threads. You'll get banned just as quick for saying negative things about trans people (for example) in a regular thread as you would the TransGAF thread—with the difference possibly being how soon your comment is noticed.

If anything, I'd say those threads are more about "on topic" and less "safe space". Safe spaces are places where the rules and expectations for how you act are specifically altered from the norm.

Ehhhh, I'd argue to a point that Game OTs are definitely safe spaces, whether or not they were intended to be.

The OTs are meant to be used as the central discussion point of a game, but what it eventually turns into is a "positive" discussion point of a game, especially if it's a game that ends up being poorly critically received by the masses.

Just like a safe space, The OT is the place where they can talk about the game without fear of the constant negativity and the feeling that because people are constantly putting down the game, and they like the game, that by extension people are insulting them.

The problem arises when the OT becomes the place to shield yourself from valid criticism because you don't want to hear anything that doesn't conform with your personal views. I wouldn't make a bet on it, but I can imagine I can find some recent guilty parties in the NMS OT who would spend their time in the OT just complaining about how OTHER people didn't like the game, or just try to hand wave the criticism away as "it's just cool to hate on it". They seek out the OT because it's a place that help reaffirm their opinion is the right one. It's "safe" from the opposing opinions of the haters.

In the case of safe spaces for the LBGTQ+ crowd that's seen as a positive (being told you're not garbage on a regular basis can be pretty uplifting) but it also runs that risk of shielding yourself from legitimate criticism because from inside the bubble, it's real easy to see all criticism as hateful.

I don't think it's nearly as big of a problem as some would believe, but I'm not doubtful it's still something that should be taken into consideration.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying as he's being purposely vague. Though I have a feeling he's trying to pull a thing, not considering going full Breitbart. But what do I know, The Escapist did.

And the owner of Destructoid said this on a podcast (30min.) in July 2016

I think overall… GamerGate is positive. It challenges websites like [Destructoid] and many others to be more transparent with the readers. That’s really the core of it.

 

[DedValve]

I just wanna talk about videogames...

Then why are you in a political thread with the distinct topic of politics in the off topic section of a video game forum?

This is a non-snarky serious question.

 

[EmiPrime]

In the case of safe spaces for the LBGTQ+ crowd that's seen as a positive (being told you're not garbage on a regular basis can be pretty uplifting) but it also runs that risk of shielding yourself from legitimate criticism because from inside the bubble, it's real easy to see all criticism as hateful.

I don't think it's nearly as big of a problem as some would believe, but I'm not doubtful it's still something that should be taken into consideration.

We're barraged on a daily basis with bigoted, hateful shit. The notion that we're insulating ourselves entirely from that is a right wing perversion. We're not deluded, we know what's out there because we live it everyday.

Safe spaces are a refuge from that, a small part of our lives where we don't have to deal with that and can let our guard down somewhat and seek friendship and support and can celebrate and commiserate among our own without some nobhead breaking out the old concern troll routine or starting a "debate" in bad faith.

 

[DedValve]

Ehhhh, I'd argue to a point that Game OTs are definitely safe spaces, whether or not they were intended to be.

The OTs are meant to be used as the central discussion point of a game, but what it eventually turns into is a "positive" discussion point of a game, especially if it's a game that ends up being poorly critically received by the masses.

Just like a safe space, The OT is the place where they can talk about the game without fear of the constant negativity and the feeling that because people are constantly putting down the game, and they like the game, that by extension people are insulting them.

The problem arises when the OT becomes the place to shield yourself from valid criticism because you don't want to hear anything that doesn't conform with your personal views. I wouldn't make a bet on it, but I can imagine I can find some recent guilty parties in the NMS OT who would spend their time in the OT just complaining about how OTHER people didn't like the game, or just try to hand wave the criticism away as "it's just cool to hate on it". They seek out the OT because it's a place that help reaffirm their opinion is the right one. It's "safe" from the opposing opinions of the haters.

In the case of safe spaces for the LBGTQ+ crowd that's seen as a positive (being told you're not garbage on a regular basis can be pretty uplifting) but it also runs that risk of shielding yourself from legitimate criticism because from inside the bubble, it's real easy to see all criticism as hateful.

I don't think it's nearly as big of a problem as some would believe, but I'm not doubtful it's still something that should be taken into consideration.

Your last example and perhaps I'm misunderstanding is much different when applied to minorities. A gay guy or a black guy will often not misconstrue speech with hate speech. They may get extremely agitated when confronting ignorance and take it more personally (I know I'm guilty of this) but there is no "bubble" to create in this country anyways when it comes to minorities. The moment you walk out of your safe space your back to being whatever awful words you were called before.

Its why privileged idiots taking over the "safe space" name and throwing it into the garbage is so maddening. They create a bubble for themselves and their hatred because they know they will rarely be challenged for it regardless if they are in a safe space or not. Me on the other hand I dealt with so much shit that I got off twitter and a few years ago when I was trying to do a game company I went from managing social media (which is how I started my career) to entirely throwing myself to learning code because I refused to take it anymore. I can't be in a bubble and I'm honestly glad that some of my comments from #heterosexualprideday on twitter (which I made a thread about) actually got me minimum hate and baggage. I still stopped going on twitter.

Again I feel like maybe I'm misreading you, I've been feeling very weird lately when it comes to reading.


EDIT:

We're barraged on a daily basis with bigoted, hateful shit. The notion that we're insulating ourselves entirely from that is a right wing perversion. We're not deluded, we know what's out there because we live it everyday.

Safe spaces are a refuge from that, a small part of our lives where we don't have to deal with that and can let our guard down somewhat and seek friendship and support and can celebrate and commiserate among our own without some nobhead breaking out the old concern troll routine or starting a "debate" in bad faith.

Just saw this, agreed.

 

[Snowybreak]

Ok, let's try to get an understanding of exactly what a safe space is...

I would consider a student LGBTQ+ association to be a safe space. As in, a place where people of similar background come together to discuss issues that affect them and people they know, as well as offer emotional and life support to those in need. It isn't a fucking echo chamber, it's a group that exists for the safety of its participants.

If you say, "Why should safe spaces exist? Just grow thicker skin!" you are missing the fucking point. Hey guess what, not everyone has the perfect emotional capacity to just ignore insults and horrible things tossed their way. If they did, suicides would not have happened from teasing and bullying.

When bullshit things arise from radical insane people who overreact to things, people are quick to make generalizations because it helps fit their worldview and cordon themselves off from the fringe. This is counter-productive to everything and even if you would consider yourself to be an open-minded person, you become incredibly hypocritical.

Saying "LOL, coddled millenials, why should they get their own special snowflake space?" shows that you have an extreme misunderstanding of what people are actively working for when they talk about safe spaces.

Would you say that all black student associations have to have one racist motherfucker to offset the quote on quote "echo chamber?"

Should an LGBTQ+ association have a right-wing evangelical priest sit in on every meeting because "they only talk about their own problems and don't listen to other opinions?"

If you say yes to either of these, you're an asshole.

Thank you for reading this rant.

 

[Dalibor68]

Should an LGBTQ+ association have a right-wing evangelical priest sit in on every meeting because "they only talk about their own problems and don't listen to other opinions?"

I don't think that what this is about though.

I don't believe most people are so bothered by a group of people having a retreat now and then where they can talk about their issues / things that affect them etc. in peace.

I think what bothers some people is when that advances from what I described above to a point where you isolate yourself more from outside people and only hang out with likeminded people that have exactly the same political views as you and you reinforce each other in those views so much to a point where you take it as only truth and don't know how to handle other views anymore without shouting people down like in that cringeworthy video from that recent thread. And when I say different views I don't mean "Everyone is equal" vs "Black people suck!", but discussing points with more nuance, whether that's immigration, fiscal matters, military spending or anything else.

 

[Aizo]

Humanity has stooped so low, we must defend people from words!

Complete lack of empathy. People deserve a break from the abuse the experience every day.

 

[Snowybreak]

I don't think that what this is about though.

I don't believe most people are so bothered by a group of people having a retreat now and then where they can talk about their issues / things that affect them etc. in peace.

Here's the thing, you may not think it's about that, but a lot of people believe that it is. Would you think that people would have concerns about an LGBTQ+ group being a safe space for ideas about military spending? No. Most people can not go that deep into understanding such a specific aspect of the argument. When that SLU protest happened, people weren't walking out because of that guy's opinion on the economy, they walked out because he was an Islamophobic, homophobic, and racist bigot. And when people criticized the students they immediately fell onto the free speech fallacy as a way to justify their beliefs. The students weren't blocking out policy opinions, they were blocking out directed attacks to their very being.

And to your second point, yes, people are very bothered by the idea of a group of people retreating into a "safe space" to discuss things among themselves. You may think I'm being hyperbolic, but the whole reason this argument is even happening is because of the existence of safe spaces for people who are marginalized.

 

[Lady Gaia]

Gay marriage is not universally a human right, in Europe anyways.

Marriage equality may not yet be recognized universally. It's much harder to argue that marital status should be denied to a group based an an immutable characteristic without it becoming a pretty obvious human rights issue.

 

[Delusibeta]

We're barraged on a daily basis with bigoted, hateful shit. The notion that we're insulating ourselves entirely from that is a right wing perversion. We're not deluded, we know what's out there because we live it everyday.

Safe spaces are a refuge from that, a small part of our lives where we don't have to deal with that and can let our guard down somewhat and seek friendship and support and can celebrate and commiserate among our own without some nobhead breaking out the old concern troll routine or starting a "debate" in bad faith.

Ultimately, I do think it's impossible to create a genuine safe space on the internet, precisely because of the ease of said nobhead intruding. Even with somewhere like NeoGAF with its arcane registration restrictions and very strict moderators, there's still more than enough users that there's going to be at least one user who will spoil your space. On the internet, there will always be a mess for the janitors moderators to clean up.

 

[The Fatal Englishman]

Safe spaces are not environments for objective debate. They are spaces that are safe from ignorance and the harm that ignorance causes. In that context, the barring of opinions that cause that level of harm is justified.

I don't know about you, but the (tangible) 'safe spaces' at my university were incredibly political. The debates over which minority groups had the paramount right to a given space were utterly vicious.

 

[Mechazawa]

Out of curiosity, I decided to check out what ol' Pepipopa's up to today, in terms of fighting the good fight away from the gamergate "radicals"

1. Misogynistic shit deriding women trying to address sexism in metal
2. Xenophobic shit about isreali.
3. Anime titties

Phew. I can't believe it. No way. Insane.

 

[ZServ]

Sometimes people just want to talk to and engage with people like themselves to avoid the stress, harassment and scrutiny they endure everywhere else.

I fail to see how anyone could find that ridiculous.

It's not that it's ridiculous-- it's that once you hit a certain threshold, you're not connecting with people "like yourself." I don't think that safe spaces are a bad thing, but I think that there's far too much concern over offending someone, at the same time. We tend to judge others by their actions, and ourselves by our best intentions. I'm in the camp of believing that we should never take a statement to be meant in a hurtful manner-- you're going to inevitably be offended by someone, somewhere. Be it your parents, friends, S/O, someone will offend you, and the likelihood is that they're not going to mean to. That's 100% okay.

If you go to church, there's likely someone in your congregation who is going to have an opinion that you disagree with vehemently. "Video games are bad for you," "gay is an illness,"whatever. Take your pick. The likelihood of that happening isn't a "where are you" game, but a numbers game. The more people, the more opinions are going to be stated. As far as I'm concerned, if you're willing to post your opinion somewhere online, then you already feel safe there-- it's already a safe space for you. If people want to ridicule me for this post, I think it's rude, but I don't think anyone will. People may disagree with it, you may disagree with it. And we'll discuss that, and grow to understand each other at the same time.

I think that a huge problem with safe spaces is that people get the inherent idea that it becomes a spot where you're not allowed to express opinions that are against the norm. Most gaming forums, that'd be saying FF7 is trash, or Miyamoto is a hack, Kojima is a kooky fellow, or Ubisoft is the best publisher by a mile. You're going to rustle some feathers with that, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong, or that they're right. It's just more opinions.

 

[Messofanego]

And the owner of Destructoid said this on a podcast (30min.) in July 2016

At least he acknowledges the ugly side to gamergate later on, with harassment of women. I don't agree at all with his assessment of it being positive towards transparency, that's barely on gamergate's register. It started as a harassment campaign, and continues to be. But it has focused a light on issues about sexism and misogyny in gaming, and bringing improvements.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Homophobia kills people every single year. Just because you're not throwing punches doesn't mean you're not contributing to violence. Hateful rhetoric is violence.

Your are broadening the definition of guilt s lot with this and yes, in this case all seems fair because you are righting the good cause, but you cannot legislate freedom of expression by the few cases you think you should take off the air... another issue and quite the key one, is that laws protecting freedom are a net positive not a lack of negative side effects. The same with the idea of accepting that an evil doer may be out of jail to avoid putting an innocent in by mistake... it is a trade off... everything which does not acknowledge trade offs is a utopian lie.

Also, values may change over time, laws which limit free speech remain.

 

[Panajev2001a]

There is also a reason why some western countries have hate speech laws.

The wrong illusion that just cause people are silent they are not racists for example and the implicit bad assumption that closeted racism is not more dangerous than open one...

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'm just saying it's not difficult at all to see which kind of parade is okay and which one is not. Maybe you have the right to protest against black people, but that wouldn't mean it's fine, and it'd be odd to treat this as a conflict with two sides since only one side is being hateful.

Maybe in some cases we need to accept that free speech necessitates us to have to tolerate people who we think are in the wrong, although they are not breaking the law and in some cases laws curtailing free speech actually produce worse and more dangerous closeted and repressed racism and hate.

Over time, laws who protect the moral right of not being forced to tolerate the wrong behaviour of others to some extent tend to produce worse net results for minorities (political, religious, racial, or any other kind) IMHO.

Also, punishment rarely is the solution to improve behaviour except in those individuals which are fundamentally already on your side but may step off the straight and narrow at times.

 

[Sushi Nao]

I usually like Holmes a lot, but all of his social issues stuff is super cringey.

 

[Goron2000]

If this is his definition of a safe space then surely it is a safe space?

 

[Lime]

I'm so tired of overly sensitive and fragile right winged people who can't even handle a modicum of criticism of their video games when it comes to women or other identities.

The most sensitive and fragile people are the racists and sexists. They get outraged when a black athlete protests by not singing the anthem but don't do so when a black person gets murdered by police. They get outraged when a woman makes a YouTube video about female representations and sends death threats and year long harassment campaigns.

They're so fragile and wants their safe spaces where the oppressive status quo don't get challenged.

 

[Jacethemindtaker]

I would consider a student LGBTQ+ association to be a safe space. As in, a place where people of similar background come together to discuss issues that affect them and people they know, as well as offer emotional and life support to those in need. It isn't a fucking echo chamber, it's a group that exists for the safety of its participants.

If you say, "Why should safe spaces exist? Just grow thicker skin!" you are missing the fucking point. Hey guess what, not everyone has the perfect emotional capacity to just ignore insults and horrible things tossed their way. If they did, suicides would not have happened from teasing and bullying.

When bullshit things arise from radical insane people who overreact to things, people are quick to make generalizations because it helps fit their worldview and cordon themselves off from the fringe. This is counter-productive to everything and even if you would consider yourself to be an open-minded person, you become incredibly hypocritical.

Saying "LOL, coddled millenials, why should they get their own special snowflake space?" shows that you have an extreme misunderstanding of what people are actively working for when they talk about safe spaces.

Would you say that all black student associations have to have one racist motherfucker to offset the quote on quote "echo chamber?"

Should an LGBTQ+ association have a right-wing evangelical priest sit in on every meeting because "they only talk about their own problems and don't listen to other opinions?"

Many people will sympathise with your points, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the University itself. Surely the people within the LGBTQ+ group are perfectly capable of deciding who should be in the said group and where they should meet. Groups are not tied to spaces, they are tied to people.

Also you're talking about singular examples - one racist, one priest. If the group cannot exclude them, nor argue them down then there's a problem with the group. If your response is 'why should they have to exclude or argue?' well...learning to deal with the situation while at University might actually stop some of those suicides, ne? You can't run away from reality - you eventually have to deal with it.

Forgive me, I'm not disagreeing that people have the right to their own opinions and the right to feel safe, but I don't understand why they need to have the University enforce it for them, nor why one person's safety is more important than another's. Change comes from engagement, not exclusion.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Are we all sure this isn't some Avantgarde take on satire? It sure reads like it.

 

[nasanu]

Am I the only person who finds the concept of being insulted or having your self image harmed by words on a screen bizarre?...

What we need are not safe places but a public health campaign to deal with these people who let pixels upset them.

 

[Haunted]

I think the author in the OP didn't miss the point at all. Seems like he understands the premise and goals of safe spaces perfectly fine, but rejects the idea and construes somewhat strawman-y arguments against it to discredit it.

Which is, of course, worse than what the OP initially surmised.

 

[Dunkley]

Destructoid is silly talking about safe spaces while they already are one for anyone of their ideology with confirmation bias.

Looking at the mentions of "wrong opinions", "undemocratic and unfriendly practices", and "trigger warnings", this whole article reads like a preemptive defense against any ideological criticisms under the pretense that said criticism is a suppression of their own free speech while in reality they just don't like the idea of their ideals being challenged by someone simply saying that shit ain't okay.

And thus, instead they proceed to whine about how they won't become a safe space instead of actually leading a civilized discussion with these people about the topics they have at hand where everyone can voice their opinion without being shut down by bigotry, I know this seems like a huge task to moderate but if Destructoid wants to pride itself on challenging ideals they should actually provide a platform that provides more than one side to every story, and you know, actually have a meaningful exchange instead of just jacking off all the readers who only go to the site in order to have their ideology validated like any other "safe space", or at least their idea of a safe space, hence the quotation marks, does.

And wow, that's a lot of words. I hope that made any sense, if not refer to the OP. Although they put it quite bluntly, I gotta say their statement of "challenging" topics is dead on-point for me personally.

 

[PrivateRyan]

I don't really understand how this will be accomplished, or what it will accomplish besides creating an echo chamber.

What if they create the safe space and I continue to be offended by everything they put out. What then? What if I'm offended by the colour red, or the number five, or the name Richard. What do they do then? Leave all of those things out of their articles from now on? Ban red, five and Richard from their comments section?

I really don't understand the internet anymore.

If anything, I'll watch with morbid curiosity to see how this plays out.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Am I the only person who finds the concept of being insulted or having your self image harmed by words on a screen bizarre?...

What we need are not safe places but a public health campaign to deal with these people who let pixels upset them.

Oh boy