4 ms·

> Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions? Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling --

> Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions? Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling -- "Sticks and stones" is a common nursery rhyme for a reason.

wizofaus 4y ago
Even if you could demonstrate the long term impact on somebody's mental health and sense of self worth through constant name calling was worse than the short term impact of, say, busting their nose? (But I agree censorship isn't likely to help prevent the former. I assume physical abuse is subject to criminal charges far more often than mental/ verbal abuse is largely because damage from the latter is far harder to prove in court)
martin-t 4y ago
This is naive. Even if you can make yourself immune, you can't influence those around you. I barely care about words like "shit" and "fuck" but I can't stand lying because there will always be somebody who falls for it and starts treating you negatively because of it. And that's how harm using words turns into harm using actions. Of course you can't censor lies automatically. Toxicity doesn't have a technical solution.
jodrellblank 4y ago
> "Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling" Maybe. Maybe not. If you choose to educate yourself about financial scams, and are always wary when strangers call you, that's sensible given the world we live in. If you see pensioners being scammed out of their life savings and support doing nothing because "I would never let that happen to me, they should take responsibility like I do" that's naieve at best and maybe cruel. Similarly, a society full of media which insults and swears at people because "people should toughen up" is like refusing to clean dogshit off the streets because people should just wear shoes. Great, now you have people trampling dogshit everywhere, what a success. Like, yes you should lock the door of your house when you go out. But isn't it interesting that there are places where people don't have to? Wouldn't that be ... nice? Better? Do we really want to encourage a society full of people who are wary, calloused, defensive, always on edge, because doing something about it would be 'weak'?

wizofaus 4y ago

Even if you could demonstrate the long term impact on somebody's mental health and sense of self worth through constant name calling was worse than the short term impact of, say, busting their nose? (But I agree censorship isn't likely to help prevent the former. I assume physical abuse is subject to criminal charges far more often than mental/ verbal abuse is largely because damage from the latter is far harder to prove in court)

martin-t 4y ago

This is naive. Even if you can make yourself immune, you can't influence those around you. I barely care about words like "shit" and "fuck" but I can't stand lying because there will always be somebody who falls for it and starts treating you negatively because of it. And that's how harm using words turns into harm using actions. Of course you can't censor lies automatically. Toxicity doesn't have a technical solution.

jodrellblank 4y ago

> "Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling" Maybe. Maybe not. If you choose to educate yourself about financial scams, and are always wary when strangers call you, that's sensible given the world we live in. If you see pensioners being scammed out of their life savings and support doing nothing because "I would never let that happen to me, they should take responsibility like I do" that's naieve at best and maybe cruel. Similarly, a society full of media which insults and swears at people because "people should toughen up" is like refusing to clean dogshit off the streets because people should just wear shoes. Great, now you have people trampling dogshit everywhere, what a success. Like, yes you should lock the door of your house when you go out. But isn't it interesting that there are places where people don't have to? Wouldn't that be ... nice? Better? Do we really want to encourage a society full of people who are wary, calloused, defensive, always on edge, because doing something about it would be 'weak'?