[FRIAM] millenarianism

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

We may disagree.  I think that some spaces should be safe for some purposes. The question to be discussed, on a case by case basis, is, Are the functions of a space improved or diminished by making it “safe” in some specific way.   But there’s another point, here.  Assuming one is trying to convince others, not just mouthing off, when does aggressive rhetoric assist in changing minds.  And if one is NOT trying to change minds, why exactly are we talking?  That’s NOT a rhetorical question.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism

 

Nick writes:

 

< Surely there is SOME value, SOME times, in just trying to “get on”.   >

 

I don’t see why the absence of that is hostility, or even bad.   I do see situations in which individuals want latitude to have any remarks they make taken as valid and kind should be afforded the same discomfort they impose on others.   I certainly am not arguing for safe spaces.   Actual safe spaces are controlled by people that hold some power.    Tear down that power – prevent communities -- and discussions will be safe.

 

Marcus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200606/ddfbec4d/attachment.html>