[sdinsn]

I disagree. Both "offensive" and "harmful" are up to debate based on arbitrary views / moral codes.

[lucideer]

This is exactly what I said in my comment.

I just think debating the former is meaningless (even if two parties agreed, their shared conclusion wouldn't be useful as offending someone isn't implicitly harmful).

Whereas debating what's harmful, while similarly arbitrary and subjective, at least has the implied goal of actual harm reduction.

[sdinsn]

> This is exactly what I said in my comment.

Ooops, I think I replied to the wrong comment

[zbyte64]

Is that useful though? The following requires a moral code to say it is bad:

Directly advocating for sexual violence against another group.

[sdinsn]

You don't need a moral code. The pragmatic argument is that throughout history and across cultures, the rise of large civilizations was enabled by basic rule of law. Protecting people against violence brings stability and maximizes productivity.