This is not a comparison between Tildes and Beehaw. The question really is what constitutes a safe space, but looking at them side by side was at made me think about this issue. I’m new in both communities and I’m aware that they are in a state of adaptation with all the newcomers, something to keep in mind. Another detail to be considered is that the space I talk about is the limitations (rules and guidelines) in which the community can exist to create their own culture.
Firstly, Tildes is not a safe space and doesn’t intend to be. It’s far from being a free for all with rampant toxicity either. You go there if you want to have healthy discussions with people that know better than to cross the line when expressing themselves. That line, though, is more defined by practical consequences. You derail the conversation into something that goes in the direction of nasty and it will be cut down.
At Beehaw, I see a desire to avoid unnecessary grief. A user might have a bad day and say something in a way that rubs others the wrong way, but that will not be the norm and I imagine it’s expected that people will take notice when called out.
Both places incentive productive discussions, but Beehaw puts its users well being above all else. I believe there’s a gap between the two that can’t be filled by anything else. I think this gap is what is necessary to create a safe space. No fuzzy line that can easily be crossed, but a ditch.
With all that said, in a somewhat obvious way, I see safe spaces defined by how you make the people inside it feel. Basically, safe to exist and safe to engage. A space in which you don’t have to fear being hurt, even if that’s an impossible guarantee. In a safe space, if things go bad, there will be plenty that have your back.
Hostile spaces, on the other hand, are marked by the lack of care for safety. The world is a dangerous place and you should just deal with it or stay locked at home.
That’s probably enough from me. What are your thoughts? What do you look for in a safe space for discussions? And how do you know if you are in the right place?
Beehaw is cool. There’s good discussions about things.
I am, however, personally opposed to the whole safe space trend. I do not care if some place is a ‘safe space’, and I’ll play by the rules a place has. But some little part in me finds all these ‘don’t do x, don’t be y, don’t think of z’ rules very off putting. I wasn’t planning on doing any of these things, but the fact that these things get pushed to the forefront when you’re registering or reading the rules of a place so much - it just rubs me the wrong way.
Rules are somewhat like laws: most of them have been written in blood, the blood of those harmed by the lack of those laws before they got written.
People starting a community and pushing some rules to the forefront, have likely been burned before by the lack of those rules, so they put them thinking that will turn the new community into something they want to be part of. That is, until they realize there have been some other rules missing, and they get burned again, and the rulebook keeps growing and growing.
Same thing happens with laws, only people don’t switch communities as easily, so we end up with both contradictory laws, people pushing laws off and into the book all the time… and thus, politics.
We shall be grateful for virtual communities to be easier to switch between.
OK. I hear you, but I want to understand better before I make any argument. Why do you personally think safe spaces are unnecessary? As I said before, the space I talk about are the rules. Do you apply the same sentiment to the world in general, as in rules are not necessary?
I can answer a part. I’ve stopped interacting with many people in real life because their rules were say centered around stealing or some other issue in a way that it felt like they expected a person to steal or do that thing by default.
I just wasn’t comfortable working with people in whose mental model everyone was a theif unless disincentivised.
There’s two kinds of rules in my opinion. On one hand you have the rules that are just understood, without having to be talked about. On the other hand you have rules that you just tell everybody, and with that you show people rules that they really should care about. The problem here is, if you explicitly State rules to people, then you partly seem to expect people to break these rules.
If you take a look at sites like 4chan, you can see that even without any rules whatsoever, there still is at least some level of decency with most interactions. Of course there’s a lot of Filth and really non-decent Behavior going on on 4chan, but that is not the point.
I myself am a believer in humans generally being decent. I don’t mind people being banned for going against the sites ‘community code’ - and it’s good that it’s laid out clear. The way that this rubs me the wrong way is that rules that are front and center, shoved in your face, can kind of act like ‘gatekeeping’.
The rules for beehaw are actually well-stated, in a way that shows what they want to go for. But for example a standard top level rule on mastodon instances is ‘No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or casteism.’
Sure, the intention behind it is fine. I know where they want to get at. But these words are, currently, all very charged. Does a guy saying ‘I do not like having that many foreigners in my neighbourhood’ constitute xenophobia? You don’t have context - maybe the neighbourhood the person lived in has a lot of people living there that all speak a different language - so the person feels ‘left out’ of the community. That has nothing to do with the fact that they are foreign people - just with the fact its a foreign language. What about stating criticism on your countries’ immigration politics? At what point, exactly, does this go from ‘civilised discussion’ to ‘xenophobia’?
I’m going with xenophobia as the example as I think it’s the most easily illustrated here, but this goes for all rules.
I have to say, the first time I read those rules on my mastodon instance, I was put off. The mere presence of that rule kind of indicated to me that this was made for a specific group of people, that I do not really belong to - judging from past experiences. This turned out not to be the case, and I like interacting with people on mastodon.
I would just like to have people assume other people to be decent beings. It is good to have rules written down, to accurately pass judgement on whether something is allowed or not allowed - but shoving them into people’s faces when they join might put people off.
Tldr: it’s less about having rules, it’s about stating rules in a way that they’re clear, not open to interpretation, and that the rules are relatively ‘clear’ of ideology - so that the place the rule applies to is welcoming.
Thank you for going deeper. I see now the issue with gatekeeping. You’re right, it is gatekeeping. We can express it in a more positive way, but the point is exactly not letting in people that might harm the community. As your said, it will repel potential members that would be good additions. In the future, when the community is strong enough and is able to deal with bad elements effectively, the gates won’t be that guarded.
About some things not always being clear cut, it is not that big of a issue. Saying something that sounds xenophobic is dangerous because the lack of context is only beneficial to the ones that want to cause harm. My response to the comment would be asking for clarification, but that’s my privilege, there’s no risk to me. Imagine if I’m the foreigner in the country and there’s a growing aggression against my people. I fear for my integrity and the law might be too late to protect me. A comment saying that they wish there were more people talking the local language becomes suspicious in this situation.
Imagine that someone can’t identify who I am and say I deserve to be hurt. Should I alert them I’m the one they’re taking about? What if it’s a whole room talking like that? What if it’s ten percent of a room expressing this feeling and the rest doesn’t care?
These questions are not to prove a point, but to explain the reasons for the creation of safe spaces. So we are sure the room is not quietly agreeing.
I saw a lot of comments complaining about having to answer some questions before signing up to specific instances. Not that they were rejected, but having to apply. The question is: “Are you a decent person?”. Anyone could lie, but the question is enough to show harmful behavior is not allowed and that we’ll not be silent just because we aren’t the victim of the day.