4 ms·
there's a bit of confusing triple-negative language going on there, since H&L are offering assertions as "myths". H&L claim "What doesn’t kill you makes you we
by zzzeek 4y ago
there's a bit of confusing triple-negative language going on there, since H&L are offering assertions as "myths".
H&L claim "What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker [is a myth]", that is, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Wilson then argues that of course things that harm people can make them weaker, this is why "harm" is to be avoided. If one argues that "repression" is harmful, and harmful things that dont kill you make you "stronger", why are H&L opposed to "repression" ?
- causi 4y agoH&L aren't the ones saying harmful things make you stronger, though. They're saying being exposed to ideas and messages which offend you and make you uncomfortable does not harm you. I don't know that I fully agree with them on that, but Wilson's response of "well if being offended doesn't hurt you then they must love the challenge of having their speech repressed, neener neener!" is both inaccurate and childish.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI'm more sympathetic too h&l's General point, but I think both positions are wrong if treated as absolutes. Half of the problem is the ambiguous nature of the term harm itself. It is a undefined suitcase word and I wish we could use something more specific.