[ss108]

Wouldn't defining "harm" that narrowly mean defining "harm" for a lot of people in a 1984 way? Why should your definition of "harm" supersede theirs?

(Mostly rhetorical; I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, but I think your take is callous and ignores an inherent contradiction of free speech maximalists).

[LegitShady]

your take on harm harms me, change or be guilty of harming others...(j/k)

your take is essentially an endless take of "why shouldn't we include offending as harm" and the answer is because its not harm. Or we can just proclaim other people's opinions I don't like as harm and stand in a circular firing squad, which is what society seems to be doing now.

[chiggsy]

Opinions such as offense is not harmful? He's asking why you feel empowered to define someone being upset at some comment as something other than harm. As am I.

Is it not possible that your unilateralism on this issue has galvanized the will of the victims of the conduct you espouse to oppose you via controlling speech?

Seems that what we have now, which is essentially Isiah Berlin's negative liberty would be a good compromise. Negative liberty:

"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject—a person or group of persons—is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons" --Isaiah Berlin

Basically working to eliminate coercion of individuals as much as possible.

This state would serve everybody except, of course, those who were seeking to coerce people either overtly or covertly, instead of persuade them, which I feel is something different.

Thoughts?

[LegitShady]

> Opinions such as offense is not harmful? He's asking why you feel empowered to define someone being upset at some comment as something other than harm. As am I.

Being offended is an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with whether you're harmed or not. Being upset is not a constitutionally protected class or situation. It's just someone who thinks their emotions are more important than other people's ideas. Why do you feel empowered to pretend being upset means you've been harmed? It's a fiction that has nothing to do with reality.

[n4r9]

It's unclear what your definition of harm is. It sounds like you take it to mean only physical harm, and not e.g. psychological harm? Are death threats or racist/sexist abuse harmful or not?

[ImPostingOnHN]

Hopefully the poster finally explains why _their_ definition of harm which excludes emotional harm, should be considered an authoritative definition, and others' should not

It does indeed seem like their entire view on this issue depends on said definition of theirs being correct, because if it isn't, the view completely falls apart. And yet, they haven't well explained _why_ it's correct