WMN: t3_1b5h4r_t1_c93yila

[TITLE]

I don't think "safe spaces" are a good idea. CMV

[CaptainLepidus]

Let me clarify a bit. If a group is suffering physical abuse, then by all means, they should have a chance to speak openly without fear of retaliation. But that does not mean that you should stay within your little circle and refuse to listen to differing opinions. It can be beneficial to share with like-minded people, but I'm of the opinion that discussing with those who hold opposite view points is a much more beneficial exercise. For me at least, any of my beliefs are always open to challenge. I don't feel the need to reinforce my ideas with a circlejerk - I'm confident in my ideals and I'm willing to argue them. If I *can't* argue one of my beliefs, then it needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, I think safe spaces, where only those of a certain group are allowed to speak, are more often harmful than helpful. CMV

[pezz29]

Our society is geared towards white men. Part of that gearing is that their ideas and opinions are celebrated and encouraged, and as a consequence others might feel uncomfortable sharing their ideas and opinions in spaces dominated by straight white men. You can observe this phenomenon yourself! Are you in school, university, or employed with a wide variety of people? Observe how often women and people of color speak up - particularly in spaces where they are a) new and/or b) in a numerical minority. I'm willing to bet it's significantly less than the white dudes speak up. The other consequence of this, of course, is that if there's a straight white male opinion on an issue you better fucking believe *everyone* has heard it, because the straight while male opinions are the mainstream opinions. They're the op eds in your newspapers, they're the SCOTUS decisions, they're the authors of your magazine articles, etc. Sometimes it's nice to have a space where this particular viewpoint isn't belabored past the point where it's useful. Finally, 'safe spaces' can also foster a discussion between a group of people who are all on the same page. No movement would ever get anywhere if it had the first hour of any given meeting trying to explain its core tenets to newcomers. If I want to hash out the specifics of intersectional feminism, I am most likely to accomplish that goal with a group of intersectional feminists. I *ought*, if I'm a good intersectional feminist, to have a good logical justification for intersectional feminism in general, but sometimes I don't want to have to *give* that justification every time I talk about it.

[DrChadKroegerMD]

I don't really have the time to do a point by point analysis and I have benefited from safe spaces [Narcotics Anonymous is essentially a safe space for people getting over drug addiction], but I think there is something to be said also for open dialogue. So far this thread has only considered safe spaces for people with very legitimate concerns, but what happens if we give a safe space for groups that are justifiably oppressed, say Neo-Nazi skinheads or a group that is encouraged in a nonsensical belief by safe spaces like otherkin? I would be hard to put legal restrictions on who can have safe spaces without violating rights to association and free speech, but I don't think creating safe spaces for every viewpoint or every perceived wrong will lead to progress.

[CaptainLepidus]

Yes, it's great to have a place to discuss with similar people - but that doesn't mean you should be afraid to argue with those who disagree. I mean, if we just divided ourselves upon every single line, then we wouldn't have a society. I honestly think that speaking to those who disagree with you will only make your opinion stronger - especially if they convince you that you were wrong. And I doubt that isolating a particular group - in this case women - will actually help build their confidence when dealing with other groups. I think it reinforces the idea that they don't have to put up with differing opinions, which is terrible. So that doesn't quite do it for me, I'm afraid.

[pezz29]

I think you think society at large is more of an open forum than it actually is. All of society is *already* a safe space for straight white men. Reddit's a good example. Every survey or poll that's been done has shown this site is overwhelmingly straight, white, and male. It's not like you *can't* be here if you don't match that description, but you're either off in your own corners of Reddit (the fempire, for example), or you get top comment in the defaults by saying 'as a black woman *agree with hivemind opinion*.' Arguing on Reddit - particularly the defaults - *is* 'having a place to discuss with similar people.' Demographically, it *is* dividing ourselves upon every single line. God knows the karma system is a way to avoid speaking to those who disagree with you. And you better believe isolating a particular group - in this case straight white men - has reinforced the idea that they don't have to put up with differing opinions, which is terrible. So yeah, it would be great if we had one big open forum for everyone of every demographic, but we don't. We have one massive, society-wide straight white man safe space, and whatever tiny, niche, controversial safe spaces minorities can cleave for themselves. That contrast is why safe spaces are important. If you really really want to get rid of *any* safe spaces, including the straight white safe space, here's what you need to do: Find a discussion where almost no one looks like you, and be silent for a good long time, then start saying stuff. Now you have an open forum, plus you know what it feels like to live your whole life in the straight white male safe space.

[Veloqu]

How is society already a safe place for straight white men? Men are equally abused in relationships, are sentenced harsher for the same crime, automatically assumed to be the aggressor in domestic arguments, more prone to suicide, are a large support of the homeless population, and are falling behind in college education. (I can link the studies later, I'm out right now) I'm not trying to get into an "oppression olympics" here, just stating that this mythical society where men have everything easy does not exist. When a university in Canada wanted to put in a men's center the outrage from many feminists because of this idea that men always have it so well. It's not true and very damaging.

[iRayneMoon]

The fact that society, as a whole, caters to straight, white, middle to upper class, males won't negate the fact that every single person will face challenges, but how many compared to the next person? [This is an article discussing White Privilege in society](http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html) [This discusses Male Privilege](http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/) [This discusses Heterosexual Privilege](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/) [This discusses Middle Class to Upper Class Privilege](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/10/list-of-upperclass-privilege/) There are different privileges for different cultures and societies obviously, but those are the most frequently sited ones for Western society. Also it must be noted that belonging to a Privileged group is *never* a personal attack. I am white and middle to upper class, and am very aware of how I am privileged versus those who are not white or middle to upper class. Acknowledging how society is structured towards a certain group is in no way meant to be pointing the finger or blaming anyone. If people acknowledge ways in which they are favored or privileged then it may lead to more equality in society, who knows? I have friends who are white, male, straight, middle to upper class and still fight for equality, because they are aware of how they are favored and disagree with those notions.

[Veloqu]

Yes, every culture, society and gender has it's own privilege. This isn't a debate about how much any one group has, like I said, I don't want to get into an "oppression olympics." I just want it to be clear that being a white straight male doesn't mean they have an easy button on life. There are just as many problems that plague them as most other people, although they manifest in different ways. One of which is brought up in the comments "Reddit is a primarily white straight male dominated website and therefore a safe place for you." However whenever something that gets brought up that is a male issue outside of /r/MensRights there are tons of people decrying the need to address the issue. Whether or not you believe that a safe space is necessary for some people (I don't), this is far from it.

[iRayneMoon]

Well, I never did directly discuss point by point your original post. I could explain the opposing view if you'd like? Perspective can be pretty important and all. [STA-CITE]> There are just as many problems that plague them as most other people, although they manifest in different ways. [END-CITE]Did you read the links I offered? They pretty heavily covered the various ways in which society is structured in favor of certain groups. Everyone faces struggles in life, because that's life, but some groups will simply face more oppression and thus more struggles in their lifetime. [STA-CITE]> Whether or not you believe that a safe space is necessary for some people (I don't) [END-CITE]I covered this with the OP and explained why Safe Zones are necessary. You can go through what I explained to OP if you'd like. I am a woman and a part of the LGBT community, I also live in The South in a very conservative area. Safe Zones for some people are a matter of life and death, they are very necessary for some groups.

[Veloqu]

I didn't read the links offered, but only because I've read tons on the topics already. I didn't mean to claim that white men have as hard a time as everyone else. I know that society is structured to give them some advantages. What I mean to say is that some advantages =! having it easy. There are tons of issues that they have to deal with but whenever they get brought up there are plenty of people who immediately jump down the op's throat because "men have it so easy, why should we address this issue?" Even here on reddit which you used as an example of a safe place [STA-CITE]>I covered this with the OP and explained why Safe Zones are necessary [END-CITE]∆ I'm part of the lgbt community as well but live in Southern California so I haven't had to deal with a lot of the prejudices you have. When I picture safe spaces it was the same way as op. I still think that they can be harmful if you shoot down every dissenting opinion because you're in a safe space but I see the need for them.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed - 1 delta awarded to /u/iRayneMoon

[DavidByron]

That looks like an endorsement of patriarchy theory to me. Straight up hate movement conspiracy theory stuff. Denigrating a minority group. [STA-CITE]> Acknowledging how society is structured towards a certain group is in no way meant to be pointing the finger or blaming anyone [END-CITE]Oh really? So if I said the Jews run Hollywood or that the Jews control global banking and secretly have their claws into all the world governments.... that's not racist right? That's just, "Acknowledging how society is structured towards a certain group"? Feminist slogans are hate speech. You would recognise them as such if you saw the same shitty arguments made against any OTHER birth group.

[pezz29]

Try reading [this](http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy).

[Veloqu]

I don't understand the relevance of this. I'm not bashing feminism or claiming that men have it worse than anyone else.

[pezz29]

The point is that you can find a few statistics where men are disadvantaged, ignore the useful context that feminism places them in, and reach the conclusion that society doesn't cater to straight white men. It totally *does*, and the article I linked is meant to demonstrate that all those examples of yours are mere side effects of that catering.

[v0ca]

Also, men are more likely to be victims of street violence in the UK.

[CaptainLepidus]

I don't know. I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that society in general is only inclusive of the "white male hivemind opinion" (whatever that is - white males are pretty divided over quite a few issues, actually) I don't see any evidence that being a black woman means you are unable to express your opinion on Reddit. I mean, your gender/race aren't really relevant to most subjects, or shouldn't be. Also, I'm an atheist and a bisexual so I know what it's like to be in the minority - perhaps not on Reddit, but in real life - and that's *never* stopped me from voicing my opinion. Others may have different experiences, though, and I'd be open to hearing them. That's what I'm here for, after all!

[iRayneMoon]

Yay open discussion! That's what makes this place one of my favorite subreddits honestly... Anyways, back on topic! [STA-CITE]>"white male hivemind opinion" [END-CITE]I think what this person, correct me if I'm wrong, is trying to explain is white, straight, male privilege. I posted links discusses those below if you'd like to check them out. [STA-CITE]> I don't see any evidence that being a black woman means you are unable to express your opinion on Reddit. [END-CITE]They can express their opinions if it agrees with the majority of Reddit, which is white and male. If they discuss how society has effected them as a woman or a person of color then the agreement and disagreement can vary. I have seen people downvoted into oblivion for even simply discussing how society has effected them negatively as a woman, person of color, or any other minority. It's really frustrating actually... [STA-CITE]> I'm an atheist and a bisexual so I know what it's like to be in the minority - perhaps not on Reddit, but in real life - and that's never stopped me from voicing my opinion. [END-CITE]It's good that you feel that way, but some groups do not. Where I live, the South, it is a very conservative area. Being LGBT in some regions is practically a death sentence. A Safe Zone for LGBT youth means the world to our community. I go to a pretty average university, but I am still shocked to see how many homophobic comments and actions I witness. I am constantly reminded of the place that I live when I see prejudice and inappropriate remarks and actions. Safe Zones for the LGBT community and Women are not about avoiding the other opinions, trust me we are very aware of the opposing view, they are about safety. LGBT people I talk with have been victims of verbal, physical, sexual, and mental abuse. Women I talk to have been abused, ostracized, ignored, objectified, belittled, patronized, and the list goes on. These places are meant to say, "Hey, if you're having a rough time we're here for you. We won't judge you, we won't try to down play how serious the situation is, and we won't blame you for your abuse." Even though an overall Student Counseling area exists on campus, our staff can be very conservative at times. We've had professors actively speak out against our Gay Straight Alliance group, even though it is student organized and run. It is meant to be a safe space for LGBT concerns and issues, free from any discrimination or judgement that society often places on LGBT people. When women go to the Women's Center for advise and counseling it is under the collective idea that they are valuable as a person, and their gender doesn't define them. Also, it isn't like men are banned from our Women's Center. We have men who work there and spend time there with their friends and girlfriends. It's just meant to be a place that is free from judgement. Also our Women's Center doubles as a Safe Zone for the LGBT students and faculty.

[n0t1337]

[STA-CITE]> When women go to the Women's Center for advise and counseling it is under the collective idea that ... their gender doesn't define them. [END-CITE]This seems pretty paradoxical to me. If they truly weren't primarily defined by their gender, wouldn't they just go to a regular counseling center, rather than one that caters especially to women?

[iRayneMoon]

In a way it does seem counter intuitive, but let me explain in a bit more detail... Okay, a lot more detail... Our university, like many others, has a basic Student Counseling Center, which is wonderful. Sadly, many of these centers do a pretty crap job of "counseling". For example, in rape crisis cases some counselors will simply be looking out for the interest of the university, may have very little clear training in gender specific issues, and so on. Recent news events have shown pretty minimal support for students even in areas of university life dedicated to students. The director of our Women's Center has special training in rape crisis situations, domestic violence situations, abusive relationships, sexual abuse, and other issues that majorly effect young women. A Women's Center is in effect because, sadly, even the areas of a university that are meant to help students often do not. Also, Women's Centers exist because of the long standing history of few women in academia. In essence, a Women's Center also exists as a way to support women in academia and insure that women do not quite their education, especially over an issue of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or abuse. A Women's Center exists as a safe location from societal prejudices and discrimination, meaning that a person's gender or lack of gender is a moot point. Our Women's Center also functions as our LGBT safe zone on campus. A Women's Center generally focuses on women's issues, but in another respect it also brings forth the voices of women more clearly on campus, also insuring a more positive experience for students as a whole. With our Women's Center director being the staff sponsor for our Gay Straight Alliance, Women's Action Counsel, the Multi-Cultural Center Outreach Program, and so on she has guaranteed a more prominent voice for those often marginalized and excluded. Although, her work does involve the male population on campus. She has, sadly, had to counsel male students on issues of sexual assault, domestic violence, abusive relationships, and so on. She also counsels gay male students, trans* students who have no specific gender, or anyone who needs her. She has some of the most extensive counseling training of anyone on campus. Ranging from LGBT specific counseling, women specific counseling, sex and relationship counseling, career counseling, and really the list just goes on... The name "Women's Center" is a bit deceptive, I will admit, but the collective work and function of a Women's Center is *massive* and of huge value to a campus. Remember, the name may seem like we only cater to women, but just because we never updated the title from its founding doesn't mean we turn away anyone in need our services. That's why we exist, to help those who need us.

[fapingtoyourpost]

I believe very strongly in the marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of expression. I believe that a free and open exchange of ideas is will ultimately lead to the truth. Because of that my gut reaction is to detest "safe spaces," and I do. I would never participate in a community that strictly adhered to the rules required to make a "safe space" happen. That said, here's my devil's advocate. First, John Milton said that restricting speech was not necessary because "in a free and open encounter," truth would prevail. Alice Walker said that the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. Safe spaces are a sort of intersection of those two ideas. Racist bastards and social justice advocates make people think that they don't have the power to talk around whatever in-group they think has out-grouped them, and so their conversations when around that in-group cease to be "free and open." You'll never be less oppressed than you think you are. Giving people a place to not feel oppressed gives the marketplace of ideas a chance to work. My second point is the Galapagos Islands where Darwin studied finches. If you take a small segment of a population, isolate it, and subject it to new environmental pressures you will eventually wind up with a whole new species. That's what happens in safe spaces. Ideas are taken out of the general population, isolated from ideas from the outside, subjected to bizarre rules and the fickle egos of hyperactive mods, and eventually come out as a whole new way of thinking. Honestly, it's not usually a very good one, just like usually mutations will kill you. Still, it's important that there are still places out there where people can be collaboratively wrong without being mocked. Sometimes you need to be wrong for a little while if you want to find a new way to be right. Cool stuff occasionally comes out of insular groups.

[CaptainLepidus]

"You'll never be less oppressed than you think you are." Honestly, I can't agree with that statement. As to the rest; sure, occasionally something interesting comes out, but often brainwashed extremists result as well. Everyone needs to be questioned once in a while.

[fapingtoyourpost]

[STA-CITE]>"You'll never be less oppressed than you think you are." Honestly, I can't agree with that statement. [END-CITE] Damn, I was rather proud of that turn of phrase. What's wrong with it? The idea is that believing that you are oppressed and actually being oppressed are functionally identical. Basically, if you think that it's against the law to wear a red shirt on Wednesdays you probably would never wear red shirts on Wednesdays. It wouldn't matter if it was true or not, as long as you believed that the rule was in place the effect would be the same whether the rule existed or not.

[CaptainLepidus]

Oh, I think there was a misunderstanding. I thought you meant that believing yourself to be oppressed - not by any specific law, but in general - was equivalent to being oppressed.

[fapingtoyourpost]

That still means the phrasing needs work. Thanks for your input.

[A_Soporific]

What if you are unwilling or unable to talk about something otherwise? I mean, I get what you're trying to say, a dissenting position can give clarity and challenge things that are otherwise uncritically accepted. *But that's not the point*. What we are talking about here is a step before that, a place for people to actually speak up for the first time. How can I formulate ideas and defend them from challenge when I'm having trouble talking about them in the first place. If I'm afraid that the second I open my mouth someone is going to metaphorically smack me in the face then I'm not going to open my mouth. And that silence is unhealthy for me and unhealthy for the discussion. When brainstorming is taught in management class the first rule is to not shoot anyone down. After all, once you say "that's dumb" or "Shut up Greg" then not only is it likely that guy is going to shut up but everyone else is going to think twice before saying anything. That defeats the purpose of brainstorming, which is to come up with as many ideas as possible. This is that first step for a real discussion, because you need ideas to really discuss them. "Safe areas" aren't there for debate. They are the kiddie pool to debate's ocean. They are the place where people learn where they stand and develop the confidence and form required to go swimming, so to speak. In order for there to be more people in the debate, more people willing to propose solutions and move the discussion forward, there has to first be these safe areas.

[CaptainLepidus]

Yes, of course "shut up, you're wrong" isn't beneficial at all. But acting as if no one has the right to disagree with you causes *a lot* of problems.

[A_Soporific]

That's not what's going on there. Again, kiddie pool. Just like you can't let roughhousing scare kids out of swimming, you can't expect someone with a weak understanding of who they are and where they are coming from to do well when tossed in the deep end. Might someone miss the point and say that no one has a right to disagree with them? Possibly, but that's a **mis**use of the thing, not point of it. The point is to help people find the confidence to talk at all. After they've found their voice, then they can move on and have real discussion. But locking people out of the discussion altogether by saying "You must be this tall to ride" isn't healthy for the discussion. People aren't born with well formed ideas and thick enough skin to handle sometimes rude disagreement. It takes time to develop those things, and that's a place to do it.

[Cavemonster]

I think the issues you point to would only be issues if ALL spaces were "safe spaces". In most of the world, people are not isolated at all from differing opinion. Having safe spaces doesn't eliminate discussion from a person's experience, it just allows them a window where, for instance they can take a break from people telling them that their husband beating them is their fault or that being gay is evil and unnatural. Other groups and other views can speak in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the world that is not designated as a safe space.

[CaptainLepidus]

The trouble arises when people cling to their safe spaces - when they feel they can only express their opinion within their own groups. It's much better to voice an unpopular opinion than to have everyone agree with you and say how right you are, in my view.

[iRayneMoon]

Actually even in Safe Spaces the discussion still holds varying opinions. So, for example, I go to the Women's Center, a safe space for women, on my campus very regularly. I also attend Women's Action Counsel which works towards women's issues. We have many feminists who are in those groups, myself included, and we disagree on certain topics. If you read, not even that far, into feminist theory you will see that even feminists disagree amongst themselves. It isn't a hivemind mentality. Christina Hoff Sommers, a major feminists, disagrees with Naomi Wolf's *The Beauty Myth* in some ways. That is just one of many examples of how feminists can, and do, disagree. Being a Safe Zone does not in anyway stop ideas from being challenged. I have wonderful discussions about feminism, feminist theory, gender ideology, and so on with other feminists in the Women's Center and Women's Action Counsel. Because it is a Safe Zone though we all feel comfortable discussing these topics with people who won't say or do hurtful things in retaliation. The same is true in my Gay Straight Alliance group. One member is Republican, Christian, and believes that sexuality is a choice. Other members are atheist, Democratic, Libertarian, believe sexuality is genetic, and so on. We always love discussing these things amongst ourselves because we can have truly deep debates. The people we are debating already understand the core ideas, the language, and the culture so we can skip the small stuff and dive right into the deeper topics. So when I talk with my feminist friends in the Women's Center we do disagree at times, but we have great debates about more in depth feminist theory. In my Gay Straight Alliance we all understand the core ideas we're talking about so we can, again, have more complex debates together. It's just like debate shorthand in a way, we know that the people we're talking to understand the core ideas already, so we can just jump right into the deep end of the debate.

[iRayneMoon]

Safe spaces for who exactly? The only safe spaces I am aware of are those for women in certain regards. Are you asking about Safe Spaces in real life or on the internet exclusively?

[CaptainLepidus]

The concept of isolating yourself from differing opinions in general. Women and LGBT safe spaces tend to be the most common, as far as I've seen, but I dislike the idea in any form.

[Thornnuminous]

Then, it seems to me, you've never needed one.

[iRayneMoon]

Oh okay! I was a little confused for a moment. So, if I understand you correctly you dislike safe spaces for Women and LGBT because of the continuing support of the same ideas that won't in turn be challenged? Well, first of all that isn't what a safe space is actually for. When we discuss safe spaces for women and LGBT people we mean, "A place safe from society's condemnation, pressures, and judgement." It is a place that is meant to be safe for those who often feel ostracized by the collective society they live in. A safe zone or safe place is meant to be a place to catch your breath, to recharge, to talk openly about issues that women and LGBT people will face without being judged. It is a place to laugh about fun moments, cheer when milestones are reached, cry when you need to, and to just feel like you are not afraid like those groups often feel in mainstream society. I myself, as a woman and a Bisexual, know these places are of extreme importance. When schools and workplaces do Safe Zone training for LGBT issues they are guaranteeing that students and employees will feel better about themselves. These places and the training involved save people's lives in some instances. Rape crisis counseling offered in Women Safe Spaces save lives. Counseling against extreme homophobia and bullying faced by the LGBT community can save lives. These spaces are not meant to be intellectual bubbles where ideas do not permeate. They are locations of safety, they are a home away from home, they are a place of no judgements or pressures. In essence, these places are necessary, which is sad because I would love if society as a whole was a Safe Zone, but that is not the reality we live in... So, like I said, these Safe Zones are of extreme value and the utmost importance for those generally ostracized or afraid.

[CaptainLepidus]

∆ You've changed my view! I think you're right. I can see the value of safe spaces now, as a place to speak freely rather than be silenced. I still believe the idea is misused by certain groups to seal themselves off, however.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed - 1 delta awarded to /u/iRayneMoon

[IAmAN00bie]

I think it's just a matter of "the benefits outweigh the faults." On the Internet, safe spaces tend to become circlejerks, but really, when does bringing a group of like-minded people together not do that? It's just that their opinions are drowned out by the majority opinion when they try to argue or talk elsewhere, so they create spaces where only they can be heard. So it's either "have no say at all" or "have a say but there are some problems to go along with it..." and I think that giving the group their voice is the better choice.

[CaptainLepidus]

But, the point I'm trying to make is that being "drowned out by the majority opinion" is a good thing - arguing with other people civilly about your beliefs is one of the best things about life. I'm willing to say things that won't earn me a pat on the back from anyone if they're true.

[IAmAN00bie]

I want to say that I fully agree with you - that everyone should be able to argue civilly about their beliefs. However, I recognize that this is actually rare among all the Internet flame wars that go on. Arguments, especially when talking about very personal beliefs like religion, can get heated very quickly. And when two people hate each other on the Internet, they *fucking hate each other*. The problem is, when it's a majority opinion versus a minority opinion, it becomes 20 people versus 1 person. Ideally, they should all be able to calmly argue their points, but way more often than not both sides become childish. It annoys me too, but that's just the way it is.

[CaptainLepidus]

Maybe I'm a devil's advocate, but I actually quite enjoy the negative attention - I like fending off arguments from all sides. Perhaps that makes it hard for me hard to see this viewpoint. But even so, there are places to debate things reasonably without getting into a flame war or gang bang - you don't have to agree to discuss politely.

[IAmAN00bie]

[STA-CITE]>But even so, there are places to debate things reasonably without getting into a flame war or gang bang - you don't have to agree to discuss politely. [END-CITE]You're right about that. That's why we have this subreddit. [STA-CITE]>Perhaps that makes it hard for me hard to see this viewpoint. [END-CITE]I personally have a hard time getting emotionally invested behind any ideology, so the same goes for me.

[CaptainLepidus]

This subreddit's very existence is a big middle finger to whole idea of close-mindedness. It's incredible :)

[etherealme12]

Safe spaces aren't really created to hide people from other view points, after all, almost all of the people in these groups have to adjust to and communicate with people who have opinions other than their own in their everyday lives. There are a couple reasons why safe spaces can be very beneficial. Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head. 1)Many of the people in these groups actually *have* either experience physical or emotional abuse as well as loss of jobs, relationships with family/friends, and social status, or been threatened with it. For instance, my university has a confidential program (safe space) for people who think they might be LGBT but are questioning or can't come out for various often times very serious reasons. The people who go to that group are already in an emotionally and socially vulnerable position in which speaking up in front of people who oppose them could be not only absolutely traumatizing in itself, but also potentially life devastating. On this same train of thought, many groups have such a history of being oppressed or abused by another group that this fear becomes omnipresent even when an individual has not been *openly and directly* threatened or abused. For instance, [this study](http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3150-women-speak-less.html) shows that women are 75% less likely to speak up in a space when outnumbered by men. This means that bringing men, especially men who might vehemently disagree with what they are saying, into a safe space means for all intents and purposes shutting the women in the group up. 2)The purpose of most safe spaces is not form a space that people spend all of their time lingering in and closing off from the world, but rather to find a group of other people who share common experiences who can give you advice, comfort, and reassurance. By the way, it is not only safe spaces that do this, but many different types of groups. It would be inappropriate to waltz into a church during services and proclaim why their religion is wrong, or walking into a sports bar during the Superbowl trying to tell people that sports are stupid and a waste of time. When people come together over a common interest/experience they are looking to find enjoyment and camaraderie, not to argue. Just because people participate in these type of group events doesn't mean that the church goer or sports fan wouldn't be open to other viewpoints at another time; it simply means that in this one event or space they are not looking to battle their views out with another. Likewise, people who participate in safe spaces are still open to discussion in other circumstances, but want the occasional comfort of and support of a group who understands them. After all, most members of safe space groups live in societies which are not as receptive/encouraging of their views every day, so it isn't as though they are hiding from the world entirely. 3) Most of the rules and guidelines that define safe spaces are just to get people who typically feel shut down in normal conversations/debates for their views/sexuality/race/gender/whatever are able to express their viewpoint. Many people that I know are comfortable in their beliefs about something, but are too shy, insecure, fearful of being ostracized to be able to argue them to others, but they still need some outlet for their thoughts/feelings. Whilst I think you and I both likely best communicate and explore our ideas through debate, some people can't because they feel attacked through this method of discourse, especially people who are members of groups who have been/are being systematically dismissed in society. Participating in a safe space gives those people the cathartic opportunity to say how they think/feel and hopefully even gain enough confidence through the encouragement of the group to express their views in the more public way you desire. In this way, **safe spaces can actually be beneficial to the creation of meaningful dialog**. I hope that helps a little :)

[AlexReynard]

In that study you mentioned, do you know if the researchers also tested whether men were less likely to speak when outnumbered by women? I also notice that you're arguing for safe spaces *at their best*. But the problem is, if a group is devoted to being a safe space for certain people to talk freely, what is to stop them from becoming an echo chamber? What is to stop them from turning exclusion of opposing viewpoints from an unwritten rule to an ironclad one? And also, if some people feel so uncomfortable with criticism that debating feels like being attacked, is it helpful to them in the long run for this behavior to be enabled? Wouldn't it be better to teach them how to handle open debate, rather than giving them a place to hide from it? I believe most phobias are cured successfully by acclimation therapy.

[n0t1337]

I'm not sure if I disagree with you. I think I do, but it depends on the definition of a safe space. If when you say "safe-space" you mean a space (literal or figurative) where people of a like mind tend to congregate to express opinions, then I'm okay with that. I think that these are probably beneficial to some degree, and even if they aren't, they're inevitable. People will always seek out the like minded. However, if when you say "safe-space" you mean an area where **only** those of of a like mind can congregate and express themselves, then I feel that this is pretty silly. [STA-CITE]> It would be inappropriate to waltz into a church during services and proclaim why their religion is wrong, or walking into a sports bar during the Superbowl trying to tell people that sports are stupid and a waste of time. [END-CITE]And there's a reason that people don't do this. On some level of course, they don't do it because they know it would be inconsiderate. I think that's secondary however. I think the primary reason why they don't do this is because the risk doesn't justify the reward. Even minorities can group together in a localized area. When they do this, in that localized area they become the majority. The same stigma that prevents them from expressing an unpopular opinion in their everyday lives where they're outnumbered now protects that opinion. There is some measure of safety provided. I go to a fairly liberal university. I spend far too much time on reddit. In my day to day life, my atheism is the norm. I have no qualms whatsoever about expressing it. I can be confident that in a disagreement, a number of people will have my back. When my friends invite me to attend church however, if I accept their invitation, I don't express my non-theistic views so lightly. I know that my back would be to the proverbial wall. In this way, the church manages to provide a relatively safe space for its usual congregation without categorically disallowing dissenting opinions. It is only when a space does categorically disallow such dissent that it loses my favor. I believe that when dissenting opinions are suppressed in this fashion, it inevitably will lead to a solipsistic circlejerk. Debate is the fire in which valid opinions are forged. It is the way we separate the wheat from the chaff, and ensure that our worldview aligns at least reasonably well with objective reality as we know it. This entire subreddit pays homage to that notion. To kill such debate by fiat in the name of creating a "safe-space" seems like a terrible injustice to me.

[CaptainLepidus]

∆ Excellent post, contributed to my change of view. They do seem like a useful place to me, now. I do still think though that the concept can be abused to create a place where differing opinions are silenced.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed - 1 delta awarded to /u/etherealme12