Do you think that there should be something visually different between the two or do you think the sub-rules would be enough to clarify to people what kind of space it should be?
Danterious
joined 1 year ago
If an initial idea is bad it should be possible to choose not to build on top of those ideas and instead build on top of ideas that you think are better. When someone presents a bad idea it's ok to not agree with it but just saying no can cause the other person to feel like they aren't valued and are less likely to introduce their new ideas.
Edit emphasis on just. Also, I agree that just disagreeing shouldn't be enough to kick you out of the community. It is excessive disagreement (so much that it stops all other conversations) is what can be an issue.
What does a safe space mean to you and how would you redefine it? What expectations do you think people have of safe spaces and in what ways should they change?
FYI: sorry for asking a lot of questions. I am trying to get a better sense of what you think could be done to improve these ideas.
What do you think would be a good way to make sure that they are less likely to become echo chambers or do you think this way of interacting is doomed to make them echo chambers?
It isn't about creating a space in society that excludes those that think differently (diversity of thought is good) but rather allowing ideas from people that are marginalized to develop and grow without constant criticism which can be tiring and excessive for the people that are fending them off. There are times and places when both are important and how it is implemented is the key aspect of whether it creates polarized echo chambers or something that makes the ideas in that community better.
Edit: echo chamber -> polarized echo chambers
When I say "constructive dissent" I mean building on top of someone else ideas not just pointing out flaws in their ideas. I think that if someone suggested something that made the idea better people would be more than happy to take that and roll with it.
I think that people (as in a group of people) can be both really dumb (groupthink) or really smart (collective wisdom) it just depends on how they are networked with each other.
I linked this post in another comment but it is also relevant to this.
No problem.
I still agree with you and I made a post on another account about a very similar thing.
Start with who you can and work from there.
If you say that someone is stupid it seems you are suggesting that something is fundamentally off with their ability to reason (ie intelligence). If it is a fundamental problem like that then developing the ability to think critically would do diddly squat. In that scenario (If everyone was stupid) the best and only thing you could do would be to ignore them and dismiss their views.
Edit: I am not completely sure in this comment so I am just putting that out there.
I actually cross-posted this post into Beehaw's chat community, but thanks for the suggestion.
Also, in an online forum at least, it is really hard to decipher intent so the actual content of the text matters a lot. so communicating criticisms without adding anything more than that just leads to the conversation not going anywhere.
PS: In a slightly unrelated question why did you decide to stay on lemmy.world since it seems like you might want to discuss with the Beehaw community as well?