I read this thinking it might be interesting because I'm organising a book club at work. But it's more "how to make a safe space". No. My book club will not be a safe space, it is open to everyone who reads the book.
" I'm sorry why are you kicking me out? I read the book and I'm not doing anything wrong! I guess I'm talking a bit more than some other people but they are just quiet and I'm an outgoing guy. "
"Are you seriously implying that I'm not a decent human being because I talk a little more than Bob? "
edit: Since some people seem to disagree, why not? I fail to see how its any more complicated then those two words. You put in the effort to organize the bookclub, you have the prerogative to say who can participate. If you dont like that make your own bookclub. Forums have thrived on this concept for decades and it only got complicated once they became business enterprises.
Maybe to phrase it more broadly outside of the organization aspect and for general social interaction. You dont have a right to be part of a social group or go to a certain party. If I dont like you I likely wont spend time with you.
This is a way any and all small-scale social interactions work, and have worked since forever. Pushing a CoC onto this is trying to override the natural way small groups of people form, replacing it with a formal structure that's not fun for anyone except people better at lawyering and - to borrow FakeComments's excellent term - social LARPing, than actual interpersonal skills.
EDIT: oh, you are a different commenter than black-tea.
Well, the points still stand. Your position is different than his.
———
> flame-bait
I’m not trying to divert the conversation to pointless angry arguments. I’m trying to direct attention to the core thesis of the post.
Genuinely. I don’t know how to persuade you that I’m not trolling, but I’m not. I care deeply about this topic.
> implicit, obvious rule
The rules which people call obvious are often very hard to learn because people are unwilling to give clear feedback about them. If someone grew up in a boisterous family from New Jersey and who learned that people speaking over each other is fine, why would it be obvious to them that what they were doing was rude?
Getting kicked out without clear feedback just conveys “people don’t like me”. Nothing obligates you to teach them, but its nice to. And I think “this person isn’t willing to listen to/adjust their behavior in response to feedback” is a very reasonable line to draw for kicking someone out.
But I’d ask you to you recognise the differences among “everyone who in my honest judgement isn’t rude”, “everyone who is open to feedback”, and “everyone who has read the book”
So... can you explain more what you mean by “my book club will not be a safe space. It will be open to everyone who has read the book” means in practice?
Do you mean, “we’re going to discuss Huck Finn and not worry about which words offend the sensibilities of liberals and be annoyed at those who want to prohibit certain words. We expect you to bring $10 for your share of the barbecue.”? Cause thats still kinda a code of conduct, its just a different one than the author would have.
It means that if someone says something controversial and you get upset, it's your problem, not theirs. Basically, it will be the type of discussion that adults have always been having together.
Would you please follow the site guidelines when posting here? They include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
If you're doing this at work, or even among primarily co-workers outside of work, then your organisations policies on harassment and (to a certain extent) physical safety apply. It's a safe space whether you like it or not.
(I am unclear on why people want to organise unsafe spaces; nobody puts a trip hazard and a couple of exposed electrical wires in their office to make it feel more welcoming)