Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else’s goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the “It’s natural” appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it’s inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I’ve offered.
“Micro border”… likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
Like psychological boundaries of principle where one intently shall not bring themselves to cross regardless of provocation?
And shared among like-minded with similar experiences?
That kind of safe space?
Is that for which you’ve coined the term “micro border”?
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It’s kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama1, perhaps starting with some “aloof” mixed in with the (at least) “poor-me”, perhaps even escalating through “interrogator” to “intimidator”, to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
… I forget who that’s attributed to ~ “separation is the path to destruction”… Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"2.
Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
First, tackling:
Should they be allowed to do so
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that’s a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it’s the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I think it does.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
It’s natural and inherent to humans.
Yes… which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
Inherent, from Latin inhaerere[/Inherens] (“to stick in”), e.g. like something imbued within from something prior.
Intrinsic, from Latin intrinsecus (“on the inside”), emphasizing internal essence. Does not imply receipt. At least not intrinsically. ;)
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there… I don’t know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what’s cooking us? n_n What’s trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it’s not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who’s causing such? Who benefits?
12 Heh, that’s two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.
Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else’s goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the “It’s natural” appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it’s inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I’ve offered.
“Micro border”… likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It’s kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama1, perhaps starting with some “aloof” mixed in with the (at least) “poor-me”, perhaps even escalating through “interrogator” to “intimidator”, to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
… I forget who that’s attributed to ~ “separation is the path to destruction”… Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"2.
First, tackling:
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that’s a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it’s the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
Yes… which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there… I don’t know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what’s cooking us? n_n What’s trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it’s not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who’s causing such? Who benefits?
1 2 Heh, that’s two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.