Ok great.
Exactly the point that I wanted to get across.
lemmy.world users can't see the Beehaw community.
Edit: And I have only posted this in two communities.
That’s fair. I would hope that someone who has a genuine constructive criticism would be able to communicate it, but it might not hurt to have a rule reminding them to acknowledge and affirm the core concept before providing criticism. I can see how someone being a little curt and just voicing the criticism might come across as being anti- whatever the topic is.
They don't necessarily have to outright right say I agree with the core concept in every comment but instead they could add on to what is being said. For example, if someone came to me with real criticism about an idea I had but didn't at least try to offer anything on how to make the idea better it can come across in an online forum as being contrarian or argumentative instead of constructive.
No disrespect to the folks at beehaw, I may still make an alt account there. I appreciate what they’ve built, but it wasn’t the best fit for what I was looking to join. Ideally I’d be able to participate in their communities with this account, but I totally understand why they defederated with lemmy.world.
That's fine but I mean why not join an instance that is federated with both of them?
Edit: wording
I actually cross-posted this post into Beehaw's chat community, but thanks for the suggestion.
Also, in an online forum at least, it is really hard to decipher intent so the actual content of the text matters a lot. so communicating criticisms without adding anything more than that just leads to the conversation not going anywhere.
PS: In a slightly unrelated question why did you decide to stay on lemmy.world since it seems like you might want to discuss with the Beehaw community as well?
Do you think that there should be something visually different between the two or do you think the sub-rules would be enough to clarify to people what kind of space it should be?
If an initial idea is bad it should be possible to choose not to build on top of those ideas and instead build on top of ideas that you think are better. When someone presents a bad idea it's ok to not agree with it but just saying no can cause the other person to feel like they aren't valued and are less likely to introduce their new ideas.
Edit emphasis on just. Also, I agree that just disagreeing shouldn't be enough to kick you out of the community. It is excessive disagreement (so much that it stops all other conversations) is what can be an issue.
What does a safe space mean to you and how would you redefine it? What expectations do you think people have of safe spaces and in what ways should they change?
FYI: sorry for asking a lot of questions. I am trying to get a better sense of what you think could be done to improve these ideas.
What do you think would be a good way to make sure that they are less likely to become echo chambers or do you think this way of interacting is doomed to make them echo chambers?
It isn't about creating a space in society that excludes those that think differently (diversity of thought is good) but rather allowing ideas from people that are marginalized to develop and grow without constant criticism which can be tiring and excessive for the people that are fending them off. There are times and places when both are important and how it is implemented is the key aspect of whether it creates polarized echo chambers or something that makes the ideas in that community better.
Edit: echo chamber -> polarized echo chambers
When I say "constructive dissent" I mean building on top of someone else ideas not just pointing out flaws in their ideas. I think that if someone suggested something that made the idea better people would be more than happy to take that and roll with it.
I think you would like this video.
Social rationality
Edit: by the way I think you bring an interesting viewpoint and I thank you for the effort put into this comment.