the only reason why you wouldn't want everyone to be in spaces where they are safe would be if you wanted to harm them

why do we spend time decrypting right-wing dogwhistles when they literally say, word for word, that they do not want marginalised people to be safe anywhere

"It's good to force people to be exposed to harmful ideas! I mean, I'm white, cishet, and affluent, so I've never actually had that experience firsthand. But I assume that it's good, actually."

Some of them have been exposed to plenty of harm, and on some level they know it, and resent the idea of anyone being permitted to escape it.

@erosdiscordia yoooo this is a really good observation. the amount of times people with privilege carry the attitude of "earning stripes" or "paying dues" instead of setting up others for success is wild

Yeah! I see it a lot with some of the fash types on the lower end of the economic spectrum, as opposed to the sheltered obliviousness of richer right wingers. But it is a problem all over.

Hell, there are times when I've felt annoyed at how good younger kids have it now, thinking they deserve safety and respect etc. It's poisonous and all over our competitive society.

Cause liberals love to point out hypocrisy over actually doing Anything

@garfiald Because by the time we'll be rounded up and put in a camp, the "powers that are keeping white nationalism in check" will be too busy laughing at the fact that the rounding-up orders have a lot of typos.

@garfiald as a spokesperson of white people everywhere please suppress our plans

As an aside, the only problem I have with safe spaces is my growing suspicion that the concept externalizes safety into "a space" that will be supported with action; instead of internalizing it as habitual ethical choices that *result* in a space. It's a semantic issue.

But I think safety as a place and not a process leads to some of the exclusion battles.

But yeah, punch your local white fash. 👍🏼

@erosdiscordia @garfiald I think perhaps it’s a way to depersonalize enforcement of limits. If you’re in church, would you rather hear “Cussing is filthy and you’re filthy for cussing!” or “Shhhh! Not in church!”

Same thing with a safe space. The admittedly arbitrary and absurd rhetorical construction of a “safe space” now gives you room to say, non combatatively, “We don’t do that here. This is a safe space.”

I hear you. And that's a very good point--people dont always have the time or energy to explain, and sometimes things need to be just understood and enforced as the culture of a space.

But the "why is this space safe?" always should come down to a list of justifiable and explainable ethics. Else it'll come down to demographic taxonomy, and ultimately dogma and control.

@tibius @garfiald
And that's when you see safe/leftist spaces fly to pieces over drama and exclusion. They've defined safety by "who" and not "how".

There's obvious exceptions, the nazis/terfs that no one wants on their instance for example. But the reasons are clear and demonstrable, and the result of hundreds of hours of people making cases all over the place for how the group is by definition inimical to safety.


@erosdiscordia @garfiald I think in the end, ethics always comes down to aesthetics. There’s only so far you can explain it. I like peace because... I like it.

@erosdiscordia @garfiald Yeah so I think that explanations of ethics are good, to a point. But really most ethics can be explained to a six year old. You really shouldn’t need much more explanation than that or you’re just confusing matters.

@erosdiscordia @tibius @garfiald Can you (erosdiscordia) say more about what such a list of ethics might look like?

Here's where my perspective gets complicated. The basic ethics of treating people well, I do think they are pretty simple. But I think a lot of left/SJ people have internalized the idea that making it about abstract ethics and not "people" is problematic and less humane.

I say internalized, because I think it's a projected "bleeding heart leftists have no ethics" propaganda put on them by the right.
@tibius @garfiald

@erosdiscordia @twistylittlepassages @garfiald Yes. I think this goes back to your point earlier. Having ethics is easy. Deconstructing the false ethics we’re immersed in is hard.

@erosdiscordia @twistylittlepassages @garfiald I mean Ayn Rand wrote several very heavy books trying to explain why altruism is actually bad. And they still don’t make sense. But they require constant deconstruction.

On the other hand: Be nice. That was easy.

The damnedest thing about Ayn Rand is that she really was on to something when it comes to human potential. She was just completely, hideously wrong about what we should do to protect that potential.

As someone who's been through a lot of trauma, I see so much trauma-based overcompensation in her writing. No wonder it caught on in late capitalism.
@twistylittlepassages @garfiald

It's also hard when the very term "morality" has become so mired in right wing, religious oppression.

As though it were an unsafe concept.

It's been hijacked.

Without it, the left just has demographic-based "safety", which doesn't really hold up if you really want to apply the principles of intersectionality.

The left needs to openly reclaim ethics as the reason for what they do. To own it.
@twistylittlepassages @garfiald

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!