|
|
|
|
|
by fasa99
653 days ago
|
|
It's completely insane. "We have been blessed by the Lord above to have the superhuman ability to predict what will cause harm, please take our blessings onto you, we shall altruistically protect you from harm". The whole precedent of the language is also insane. Imagine if words COULD in reality cause harm. Monty Python satirized the concept here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qklvh5Cp_Bs
The "online words cause harm" is as absurd as that skit. Really the damage is in people claiming to have been harmed, emotionally, by a word, them wielding that as victim-power aka crybullying - that can translate into school/career/legal problems that are more of a quantifiable harm. Further, if words were so damaging, as Monty Python shown us, they would immediately be weaponized, the sensitivity to this topic is extreme hyperbole. Since the premise of works causing harm is nonsense, the definition of harm is equally superfluous. Talk to any student council president or HOA president who only did it for the power, about some initiative they alone are driving against the wishes of the group, and you will find hand waves and sugarcoats everywhere, their selfish intent somewhat easy to see behind the well-sounding good-intending reasons. Politics at the national scale is the same exact game, just that the power hungry people waving hands are much skilled and experienced. |
|