I think we need to either redefine safe spaces, change people’s expectations of them, or get rid of them entirely.
I think we need to either redefine safe spaces, change people’s expectations of them, or get rid of them entirely.
This is a very extreme example. I’m saying that more nuanced discussion and differences in views from within a community struggle in safe spaces.
I understand the concept. I’m saying that this way of working creates echo chambers.
Unfortunately, a lot of these safe spaces become echo chambers. People don’t want to have their views challenged or try to see things from other perspectives. Many attempts at constructive dissent as mentioned in this post are discouraged and are generally unwelcome.
I did use the cross-post feature. Many apps do not recognise or acknowledge cross-posting yet which might explain why this article may have appeared multiple times for you.
Yes, weirdly the very same website wrote about it back then (https://www.iflscience.com/fully-intact-dinosaur-embryo-found-inside-fossilized-egg-62004). I’m not sure what inspired another article now.
This was originally published in 2021 so I wonder why it has a new article.
https://www.iflscience.com/fully-intact-dinosaur-embryo-found-inside-fossilized-egg-62004
Is this an automated post? You told me this already earlier today and I told you that I am cross-posting but most apps do not yet recognise the function.
Is that the right link?
Archive link: https://archive.li/EYhPc
It’s mostly tabloid press covering this story, but here’s one slightly more legitimate source I found: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/08/01/zhanna-samsonova-tiktok-instagram-vegan-diet-dies/
(archive link: https://archive.li/Pz4S8)
Why does it make it dubious that the subject of a website is in its name? What if a website called “Stop Food Waste” takes about food waste?
Um, because they already have a clear agenda? They could be likely to be selective with their sources, not report on things that go against their view, etc.
I read the article and I encourage you to do the same if you did not already.
I read the article, thank you.
An article about population decline on a website literally called “Stop Population Decline” doesn’t give me the impression it’ll be fully balanced and unbiased.
This makes sense. Homes for a large numbers of additional people were needed, and these homes were available.
Is it just because of a funding crisis, or is it also because of rising prices partly due to sheer profiteering?
This was posted here two days ago:
Kekkonen of Finland, if you stretch the definition of dictator a bit.
For sure! See “Total Eclipse of the Heart”.
Who said anything about challenging views all or most of the time?
The issue with constructive dissent is that if someone perceives an initial idea as bad, it cannot be dismissed or criticised; it has to be built on. Do we want things to be built on flawed foundations? We should be able to say “no” without being cast out from our own community.