"Safe Spaces"

[Moromillas Radec]

There's a disturbing trend in the AS community that I've noticed; that these "safe spaces" are becoming more widely accepted.

I find this deeply disturbing for a number of different reasons. In one of these spaces where you are supposedly "safe," anything you say can be taken with offence. Those that are offended then find it perfectly acceptable, to then stop the person causing that offence from speaking and expressing themselves. They immediately assign a pathology, and then, with such self righteous indignation, proceed to fabricate such bald and disgusting false accusations about the person making them "unsafe," to which the "offender" is then promptly censored, silenced and deplatformed.

I should know, because it happened to me -- I even made a video about it.

My "crime"? Explaining why a merging of woo and quackery with AS advocacy is harmful. And then refuting the generalisation of "AS people having thyroid."

I believe that such a thing tramples on our rights of free speech and expression. That being unable to apply even the most mild and basic of criticisms to an idea, will allow harmful and detrimental ideas to flourish, unopposed. Ideas such as woo, quackery and snake oil, or even the further stigmatisation of AS people, or perhaps even ideas that are far worse than I can imagine. Ideas that can't survive in the public arena that is the free and open marketplace of ideas, shouldn't be protected.

What do you all think of these "safe spaces"? And what do you think of them becoming more common?

 

[wanderer03]

These "safe spaces" are a lot like a company's "open door policy." It seems like these are created to have a veneer of inclusion and acceptance, but the moment that this threatens the status quo, retribution is in the air.

My aspie brain then asks the next logical question: what's the point of having these if the safety is not enforced? I guess they're only enforced when it's convenient or expedient.

 

[hiraeth]

It's just another facet of human society (not necessarily "NT society", just society, period) that I don't understand and as a result don't particularly want to engage in. Not any more or less irritating than the countless other things that are already on that list.

It used to be a huge issue for me when I would expect some kind of community from those who shared a diagnosis or otherwise any kind of label which society assigns a minority of people for whatever reason. I would be particularly disenchanted and hurt when I realized that these "communities" are equally confusing if not usually much more confusing than "regular or mainstream society". It is more confusing because of the expectation that these people are supposed to get me and I'm supposed to get them. So once I let go of that expectation, I felt much better.

 

[watersprite]

The internet is part and parcel of and has the typical aspects of human society playing out in various ways.

My cartoon pictures, in my head only at this point, see people with colored sticky notes on them. We are accepted and welcomed if we have the "right" colors and messages as the group who assess and pass judgement on us deems to be right.

Reliable for me: the only safe space is here with my own company (and that of my partner).

 

[Sass]

I don't have a particular problem with safe spaces. The thing that people always seem to forget is that the space itself (be it a FB group or whatever), is usually started and administered by someone (or more than one someone) who has a particular view of what is safe. If anyone says or does something that goes against their idea of a safe space, then they will be cast out. At the end of the day, if they made the space, they can kinda do what they want with it :/

 

[hiraeth]

the only safe space is here with my own company

YEAH.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

If anyone says or does something that goes against their idea of a safe space, then they will be cast out.

Not really. It's more like any little thing that people go looking for to be offended over.

At the end of the day, if they made the space, they can kinda do what they want with it :/

No I disagree with that. I think people setting up these "safe spaces" is appalling to begin with, just like it would be to set up spaces where you're allowed to go around punching people in the face.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

At the end of the day, if they made the space, they can kinda do what they want with it :/

To reiterate:

I can't think of anything more benign than saying "I disagree. Here's why I disagree." that is what these safe spaces are stopping. It also allows bad ideas to flourish, because they're inherently protected from any and all scrutiny.

Also, imagine if it was some other fundamental right that people held dear -- Such as, someone setting up a space, where women are refused the right to education. Simply saying "Oh well, they just make their space like that." It doesn't make it ok, or excuse it, it's still quite horrid.

 

[Sass]

To reiterate:

I can't think of anything more benign than saying "I disagree. Here's why I disagree." that is what these safe spaces are stopping. It also allows bad ideas to flourish, because they're inherently protected from any and all scrutiny.

Also, imagine if it was some other fundamental right that people held dear -- Such as, someone setting up a space, where women are refused the right to education. Simply saying "Oh well, they just make their space like that." It doesn't make it ok, or excuse it, it's still quite horrid.

You're comparing a disagreement which saw you get banned from a group that you don't have to be part of, (and doesn't, I would have thought, impact on your daily liberties), with the systematic and pervasive discrimination of women over, well, centuries.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

You're comparing a disagreement which saw you get banned from a group that you don't have to be part of, (and doesn't, I would have thought, impact on your daily liberties), with the systematic and pervasive discrimination of women over, well, centuries.

No, I don't think the right of free speech and expression isn't any less important than the right to education. They're both pretty important inalienable rights.

Also, it wasn't meant as a comparison. Just another situation where saying "well, that's their space for it" doesn't add up.

 

[Sportster]

Where I work there are little signs up all over the place that read, "Safe Space." My first question is, "Safe from what?" My second question is, "Safe for whom?" And my third question is, "Does it really work?" There is no such thing as a safe space. "Safe" is an illusion. In the so-called "safe spaces" at work people can talk about whatever they want as long as it's in agreement with their beliefs, lifestyle, whatever. I manage to get along in the "space spaces" by not engaging in any conversation outside what it is I'm there to accomplish be it change a light-bulb or repair their A/C unit. Frankly, I don't see the need for a "safe space." Just common human dignity and respect should suffice.

 

[Sass]

Where I work there are little signs up all over the place that read, "Safe Space." My first question is, "Safe from what?" My second question is, "Safe for whom?" And my third question is, "Does it really work?" There is no such thing as a safe space. "Safe" is an illusion. In the so-called "safe spaces" at work people can talk about whatever they want as long as it's in agreement with their beliefs, lifestyle, whatever. I manage to get along in the "space spaces" by not engaging in any conversation outside what it is I'm there to accomplish be it change a light-bulb or repair their A/C unit. Frankly, I don't see the need for a "safe space." Just common human dignity and respect should suffice.

I don't see the need for them either, in the sense that I don't see how they would help me, or others, to be 'safe'. I do, though, see the correlation between these kinds of FB groups, and every other kind of club in the world, that are usually designed for people who agree with each other to talk about things on which they agree. They find that safe, and I suppose it is, but only for those who agree.

Going in to a group that mostly agrees with each other, and doing something or saying something that goes against the current, well that'll get you chucked out as a rule, and it's a FB group, not the UN.

I dunno, I keep out of organised advocacy groups for this reason, and other reasons, but I don't know that calling specific people out by name, and sharing posts from what I can only imagine is a closed group, is the way to go to combat like-minded people gathering in a place in which to agree with each other.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

Going in to a group that mostly agrees with each other, and doing something or saying something that goes against the current, well that'll get you chucked out as a rule, and it's a FB group, not the UN.

Except, making such a simple run-of-the-mill refutation isn't exactly what you would call "going against the current."

I dunno, I keep out of organised advocacy groups for this reason, and other reasons,

They posted random things about their lives and things they found on the internet, such as motivational posters. I didn't see any kind of advocacy.

but I don't know that calling specific people out by name, and sharing posts from what I can only imagine is a closed group, is the way to go to combat like-minded people gathering in a place in which to agree with each other.

If you had evidence in your possession that completely vindicates you against such appalling slander, wouldn't you want to share it?

 

[Sass]

Except, making such a simple run-of-the-mill refutation isn't exactly what you would call "going against the current."



They posted random things about their lives and things they found on the internet, such as motivational posters. I didn't see any kind of advocacy.



If you had evidence in your possession that completely vindicates you against such appalling slander, wouldn't you want to share it?

Nope, because whatever it was they said or did isn't public, but your refutation is, as and such not everyone is able to go and read through their side without being added to the offending group. It's not balanced.

 

[Sass]

Anyway, either way you did what you felt best. The video makes me uncomfortable because you pick their words and their videos to use. I find that unsettling.

You are, of course, within your rights to express yourself.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

Nope, because whatever it was they said or did isn't public,

Yes it is public.

but your refutation is,

No, the my refutation of "AS is about thyroid issues" was in the group at the time.

 

[Sass]

I looked up the group. It isn't public, it's closed. I would have to ask to be added in order to see what happened for myself. That's not public.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

I looked up the group. It isn't public, it's closed.

I didn't say that the group was public.

 

[Moromillas Radec]

The video makes me uncomfortable because you pick their words and their videos to use. I find that unsettling.

You can't exactly refute or dispel something without talking about it. When you're debating something, it's quite common that you're usually addressing someone's argument or idea. I don't know why you would find that strange.

 

[Sass]

You can't exactly refute or dispel something without talking about it. When you're debating something, it's quite common that you're usually addressing someone's argument or idea. I don't know why you would find that strange.

I find it strange that you addressed it to YouTube, not the people you had issue with. It just seems like a small FB group argument that got way out of hand.