Turns out the vast majority of people don't want to spend their lives in a permanent "safe space"[0]. That was a fast flameout
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/25/a-chat-with-imzy-co-founde...
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/25/a-chat-with-imzy-co-founde...
Therefore it's extremely important for such people to establish the world as a a safe space against safe spaces, and to push the idea that such spaces are untenable or morally bad or whatever will avoid more of those spaces existing.
I like that they made the attempt to build this but I would have never joined it because I could see myself getting into conflicts because of my beliefs.
It seems to me that everywhere on the internet that you might class as a 'haven of free speech' (whether it's 4chan, Twitter, Mumsnet or Atheists Rationalist Skeptics Anonymous) comes with an underlying set of social norms which to some extent preconfigure the kind of debate that will happen there. Imzy is just another one of those, no?
If I understand your question, yes. I would join such a Subreddit because an echo-chamber isn't what I seek.
I completely agree with forbidding things like doxing or making threats of violence but I'm concerned that "Safe spaces" only encourage intolerance towards other points of view.
Disagreement is good. Maybe I'm wrong and you can show me a side that I had never considered. Maybe you're wrong and I can present an argument that changes how you think about something. I have had my mind changed by a persuasive argument in the past. Perhaps I will again in the future. I have friends that I have seen change their views over time and I hope that I was at least a part of what caused them to change on those issues.
Good.
> I completely agree with forbidding things like doxing or making threats of violence but I'm concerned that "Safe spaces" only encourage intolerance towards other points of view.
Now now. If I went on /r/the_donald and started leaving comments about Gun Control, Trans Rights and Abortion, you and I both have a fairly good idea what would happen.
How do I know that? Well, a giant Pepe the fucking Frog fills half the screen when I even load the page, for a start, and I literally cannot upvote in /r/the_donald until I click the frog and subscribe. It's the online equivalent of a pub hanging a sign on the door saying who it welcomes in. Sure, you can ignore it, but are you really going to?
It's a de facto safe space. In fact, it's not even really a de-facto safe space, given Rule VI of The Donald is "This forum is for Trump supporters only." and if rule VII - "No linking to other sub-reddits" doesn't make it an echo chamber, I don't know what does.
Likewise, If I went on a Democrats subreddit and started raising Republican talking points, I'd be shown the door pretty quickly.
The issue isn't "pro" or "anti" safe-spaces, because everywhere is a safe space to someone. It's when people start to get selective about which safe spaces they're going to allow that gets to people.
/r/the_donald has become (or maybe always was) a safe space for 1488 identitarians. Things like /r/The_Donald and Stormfront are part of the problem just as much as safe space policies.
> Well, a giant Pepe the fucking Frog fills half the screen when I even load the page, for a start, and I literally cannot upvote in /r/the_donald until I click the frog and subscribe
Disable custom CSS, it's a dumb feature anyway.
What I find funny you might find offensive (thats how humor works some times) by trying to have rules and enforce them your always pissing someone off... the less you have the better and let people be their own filter.
Worse, several of the interaction, UI/UX, and management decisions simply amplified the initial bias (as is often the case).
Imzy was doomed out of the gate, despite some interesting ideas.
But at soon as you allow discussion of something even slightly substantive people will start to perceive some opinions as attacks on their ego.
No matter how rational and dispassionate an argument objectively is, someone will perceive it as violence.
What happens is that "tolerance, kindness and mutual respect" becomes "protection of the moderator's ego" and adherence to an ever expanding set of intellectual dogmas.
In general, "Startup X failed" is extremely weak evidence for "People don't want the product that startup X was building." Take Rdio for example: given the success of Spotify, Amazon Music, and others, it would be absolutely incorrect to conclude from Rdio's failure that people didn't want on-demand music in their browser or a mobile app for a fixed fee.