On the Internet, there are these very strong conflicting impulses - creating 'free' areas where people can say what they like, 'safe' ones where they can be free from things that inhibit discussion, and many other combinations. Real places have similar problems, but it's highlighted here as there's not much to do other than talk.
I read the post you linked, and the ones linked from it - it's all very interesting, and I understand what you mean by a safe discussion space, and why that would be a good thing. However one very interesting thing stood out to me in the key anecdote emily_shore used about her own past behaviour.
Briefly, in response to emily_shore's post examining a potential Jewish stereotype, a friend of hers made some comments which were dismissive of anti-semitism, and at the very least insensitive. emily_shore didn't respond, and was called out on this, on the basis that it prevented the establishment of a safe space.
This assertion was, I think, correct, and seems to be the key thing you're questioning in your own moderation.. but there's an aspect which nobody seemed to examine. The main people questioning emily_shore were kita0610, chopchica, ladycat777 and shayheyred. kita0610 in particular was the one who 'started' the debate, and shayheyred and emily_shore friended each other as a result of it. Everyone apologised, things became nicer in tone, and it all wrapped up, with emily_shore having examined her behaviour and determined to ensure a safer space in future, confronting anti-semitism as well as just sexism...
...and then kita0610 and shayheyred made a couple of comments which were at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so. These comments definitely created an unsafe space for Palestinians and probably all arabs/muslims - there would be no way to respond to them without starting a fight. Nobody responded to these comments, or appeared to care about them in any other way.
My assumptions are that - kita0610 et al thought they were Correct about Important Things, and so offence was irrelevant - the other people who'd just then been decrying this sort of thing didn't realise the offence since it wasn't, this time, toward them - emily_shore either didn't notice or didn't want to restart an argument with people she'd just then placated
Universally safe spaces: are they possible? Aren't there, for many issues and -isms, overlapping groups of people who are subject to prejudice and insults and yet frequently perpetrating the same?
Let's make this more direct, and expand the example above: in a place that was a completely safe discussion space for Jewish people, would it necessarily be the case that they could say things which are considered attacking or hostile by Palestinians? If they can't/don't, is it really safe for them? If they do, wouldn't it be unsafe for a Palestinian?
This is an extreme example, but it's also real. If I were you, I wouldn't drive yourself mad trying to ensure a completely safe space for any kind of discussion - the same sort of thing would apply even to some things as impersonal as economic systems, and it definitely applies to the intersections of different -isms. (Anecdote: I have seen african feminists and western feminists argue, the former saying "don't challenge MY right to find female circumcision unimportant - my people need to fight on their terms" and the latter going "don't challenge MY right to object to the oppression of other women by this practice". Does racism/imperialism "trump" feminism?)
If you just do the best you can with what reasonable amount of time is available - and that best is obviously quite good, since most people don't even consider these things - then I think that has to be okay.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Spaces and choices
I read the post you linked, and the ones linked from it - it's all very interesting, and I understand what you mean by a safe discussion space, and why that would be a good thing. However one very interesting thing stood out to me in the key anecdote emily_shore used about her own past behaviour.
Briefly, in response to emily_shore's post examining a potential Jewish stereotype, a friend of hers made some comments which were dismissive of anti-semitism, and at the very least insensitive. emily_shore didn't respond, and was called out on this, on the basis that it prevented the establishment of a safe space.
This assertion was, I think, correct, and seems to be the key thing you're questioning in your own moderation.. but there's an aspect which nobody seemed to examine. The main people questioning emily_shore were kita0610, chopchica, ladycat777 and shayheyred. kita0610 in particular was the one who 'started' the debate, and shayheyred and emily_shore friended each other as a result of it. Everyone apologised, things became nicer in tone, and it all wrapped up, with emily_shore having examined her behaviour and determined to ensure a safer space in future, confronting anti-semitism as well as just sexism...
...and then kita0610 and shayheyred made a couple of comments which were at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so. These comments definitely created an unsafe space for Palestinians and probably all arabs/muslims - there would be no way to respond to them without starting a fight. Nobody responded to these comments, or appeared to care about them in any other way.
My assumptions are that
- kita0610 et al thought they were Correct about Important Things, and so offence was irrelevant
- the other people who'd just then been decrying this sort of thing didn't realise the offence since it wasn't, this time, toward them
- emily_shore either didn't notice or didn't want to restart an argument with people she'd just then placated
Universally safe spaces: are they possible? Aren't there, for many issues and -isms, overlapping groups of people who are subject to prejudice and insults and yet frequently perpetrating the same?
Let's make this more direct, and expand the example above: in a place that was a completely safe discussion space for Jewish people, would it necessarily be the case that they could say things which are considered attacking or hostile by Palestinians? If they can't/don't, is it really safe for them? If they do, wouldn't it be unsafe for a Palestinian?
This is an extreme example, but it's also real. If I were you, I wouldn't drive yourself mad trying to ensure a completely safe space for any kind of discussion - the same sort of thing would apply even to some things as impersonal as economic systems, and it definitely applies to the intersections of different -isms. (Anecdote: I have seen african feminists and western feminists argue, the former saying "don't challenge MY right to find female circumcision unimportant - my people need to fight on their terms" and the latter going "don't challenge MY right to object to the oppression of other women by this practice". Does racism/imperialism "trump" feminism?)
If you just do the best you can with what reasonable amount of time is available - and that best is obviously quite good, since most people don't even consider these things - then I think that has to be okay.