[lhnz]

This, but I also think we can't just do this in a pure "freedom of speech" way. In order to have a space where we can talk about things calmly and respectfully we will need to shut-out "bad faith" actors, supremacists and ideologues. Otherwise they will pervert the dialogue in order to win some political battle and we risk the wrong outcomes.

We have to come at this very directly from the perspective of the outcomes we wish to achieve and those that we wish to avoid ("consequentialism") rather than through some mindless repetition of an ideal that we believe to be sacred ("free-speech is so important"). Free-speech might be important but maintaining peace and achieving good outcomes for all involved should probably be held in higher regard [0] than some abstract principle, particularly when that abstract principle is a shibboleth of the people on one side of an issue but not the other.

[0] I'm talking about people that want to argue about racism and sexism while incidentally subjecting those they're arguing with to the most extreme and potentially toxic people in their group in the name of 'free speech'.

[0xf8]

I genuinely agree with this notion, almost holistically, and I feel comfortable asserting that if we unreservedly followed this line of thinking the world would be a better place. However, in the intent to further improve on the notion, while I do believe it is important to have to make difficult choices about "who" gets to have a voice in order to achieve more civilized discussion, I don't think that "shutting-out" should be limited to the "bad faith actors" or the extremist ideologues. I think a stronger adherence to a sense of dialectics could benefit by further reducing the voices allowed. There are plenty of soft, gentle and respectful "voices" that detract from getting to the core of important discussions by bringing forward very irrelevant, tangential or otherwise "missing the point" (factually incorrect) ideas. Just because they presented their opinion respectfully, does not mean it needs to be "allowed" into the debate. This becomes especially problematic or can have a serious negative impact when it comes from an exogenous source with a disproportionate amount of credibility. In short I believe some aspect of the "scientific method" for wont of a better expression deserves a role in "regulating" the process of public debate.

[hosh]

Going by what I am learning in Crucial Conversations: safety is achieved when you know the other person genuinely cares for you. In that space, people can talk about anything, no matter how controversial or intense.

This space is not an external space nor is it acheived through policy or code of conduct. This space is an internal space that is created when two or more people genuinely cares about each other despite having differences in opinion.

It follows that, the best way to create safe spaces is to first practice this with people you already have a relationship with, particularly those you have severe disagreements with.

[Fifer82]

Is that not just saying discount everyone who doesn't agree with what WE want to talk about, and then lets talk about it?

[lumberjack]

No. Not everyone contributes to the discussion. Some people have malicious intent. Others are just ignorant. You cannot deal in absolutes. I work in the sciences. If we were to consider every crackpot's solution to the hardest problems in math/physics, we would waste our lives in folly and never get anything done.

[lhnz]

No, what I'm saying is that you can't have a discussion between two groups of people and then through the back-door one side tries to get the other to subconsciously accept their principle of 'absolute free-speech'. You both have to be capable of determining whether a belief is sacred or a shibboleth to you and be able to meet half-way.

If you don't do this, you'll be starting on the wrong foot.

Also, in order to have a moderate discussion with less shouting, it's not a good idea to have it be a free-for-all where anybody can speak. You need people that are willing to negotiate their beliefs with each other.