A safe, unsafe space

View this thread on: d.buzz | hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com
·@tarazkp·
0.000 HBD
A safe, unsafe space
There was a comment on one of my posts today from someone who avoids confrontation here out of fear of retaliatory flags which is something I find worth having a talk about, at least from my experience. I haven't been flagged very much at all here (other than people I have flagged for plagiarism or nonsense) despite being pretty argumentative at times across many topics. 

What I have found personally is that one thing Steem is very good at is holding discussions (sometimes arguments) but without it spilling into flags. This is especially true with the more senior and invested users. I can argue with bidbot operators about their business practices, make suggestions or criticise their various behaviours and they can do the same back but it doesn't have to resort to abuse. I am not saying they are my best friends but for the most part, there is mutual respect at the higher levels when it comes to arguments, especially those concerning the platform. 

https://i.imgur.com/DbPG6jG.jpg

Of course, this all changes when things get personal and people attack the individuals themselves but, I don't really go there too often which means my arguments, even with the people involved are *nothing personal*. But, for many people they take criticism *very* personally even if it is justified or, not even pointed directly at them. 

In the lower levels there are more likely users who do not  understand much of the system and therefore do not understand the usage of flags well. They see them as something they can retaliate with. Retaliatory flags are stupid and serve no real purpose and those who are more heavily staked generally understand this. It does happen though, especially when there are personal vendettas and pride on the line or an image to uphold.   

All in all though, argumentation is usually conducted well here and most people will either engage civilly or, walk away from the argument. There is no problem with walking away unless perhaps it is walking away to avoid answering questions. I guess even then it is better than resorting to ad hominem attacks to discredit someone. 

In my opinion, argumentation is part of the road to building strong relationships through cooperation to solve problems facing both parties. This in turn is the way to also build strong communities as they are comfortable to tackle the challenges they face even if they happen to be in uncomfortable or taboo areas. 

Strong communities don't shy away from conflict, they embrace it as a question to solve. There might not be a correct answer or, the correct answer might not be possible to implement immediately but, working at the problem will *approach* the correct answer. I think this is why at the higher levels there is less retaliation as people are generally doing and saying what they believe (right or wrong) is correct, at least by them.

If the people involved in the discussions come across as being genuine in their views without being unnecessarily aggressive, most people will accept the argument as a differing of opinions and take the *'agree to disagree'* approach. There are some people I discuss things with regularly and still don't see eye to eye on much but, I can't expect everyone else to be right all the time ;)

It is good to recognize that this isn't the experience of all users here though and the less people understand the system, the more personally they seem to take arguments and criticism. As for flags, they definitely take those personally and I find those that take them the worst are the least emotionally stable. No surprise really as generally emotional instability comes with feelings of victimization and oppression.

Surprisingly, I find Steem a safe space to discuss topics as for me, the *safe spaces* that don't allow open discussion are the unsafe environments engineered to keep people separated and in eternal conflict. This political correctness, anti-bully mentality is what is creating an increasing amount of exactly what it claims to want to stop. The only way humans can really end the current conflicts is through discussion or extinction, with the latter solving all problems.. 

There is never going to be an end to arguments as we all have various views and positions and this is the same for Steem. The complexity is much too high, the incentives and desires so broad and the people with such a range of skills that no matter how good the code, humans will still be unable to agree on everything. It is because of the disagreement we tend to evolve and innovate though. Innovation is essentially someone saying, I have a better way than you.

So, the answer to a strong community isn't ending arguments, it is learning how to argue well enough that solutions are created instead of walls to defend what isn't working. Not an easy task but it is up to each individual to develop their skills to achieve this. 

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

👍 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,