4 ms·

>The first ethical principle in AAA’s Principles of Professional Responsibility is to “Do no harm.” The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions th

• xcdzvyn 3y ago
  Harm can mean a lot of things. I doubt the AAA intended "do no harm" to mean "don't run into the crowd and start swinging on people".
• EA-3167 3y ago
  I'm not sure where it originated, but you have to admit that it's a very effective way to silence people.
• i_am_jl 3y ago
  I don't think "harm" here refers to physical damage. "Don't physically injure others" would be a weird thing to include in a code of conduct for professional anthropologists.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• olivermuty 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • zozbot234 3y ago
    > If you spend ten years trapped in your own body, only to be met with «aaccshtually there are only two genders» all around I think your assumption that non-binary people are uniformly 'trapped in their own body' is quite mistaken. They simply inhabit an unexplored, mysterious, liminal space between the two majority genders. If anything, this would give them an elite, quasi-shamanic status according to traditional «binary» culture, not drive them towards social exclusion.
  • abduhl 3y ago
    I had never heard of “stochastic terrorism” before this post. I looked it up. It’s a fringe media term that is not accepted or used in the scientific literature that basically attempts to make a tenuous connection between an extremist and whatever talking head or speaker that the person saying “stochastic terrorist” dislikes the most at that moment. This is not a concept. This is a conspiracy theory, specifically designed to cast aspersions on the speaker and to attempt to silence the speaker’s speech or galvanize the blogger’s base against the speaker by acting like words are physically violent. Words aren’t violence. Stochastic terrorism isn’t real.
  • logicchains 3y ago
    >I truly wonder how your life is if you think words can not be equally or more harmful than physical violence. As a culture we used to teach kids "sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me", i.e. resilience. Now we've taking the opposite approach, and unsurprisingly enough suicide and mental illness are at an all-time high.
    • mikrotikker 3y ago
      Victim groups can be weaponized for political clout.
• amflare 3y ago
  Its due to the rise of identity politics. If you like cheetos, and I say cheetos are bad, if liking cheetos is how you see yourself as a person, then it could seem like I'm saying "you are bad (for liking cheetos)". It's more nuanced than that, but the gist is that non-positive thoughts about an identity category could feel like personal attacks to the people who have integrated that identity category with their sense of self.
• Smoosh 3y ago
  "The pen is mightier than the sword"? -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  >This notion of equating words with physical violence is so confusing to me. Nothing in what you quote is equating words with physical violence. You seem to be confusing the concept of “harm” (which is what is referenced) with the much narrower concept of “physical violence” (which is not, except by you.)
• SenAnder 3y ago
  It's popular because it's effective. Paint yourself as so oppressed and vulnerable (but not fragile - that's for your enemies) that the wrong kind of criticism endangers your very existence. You are just a few wrong words away from being assaulted and killed by violent mobs. Now if anyone says something that may endanger you, as determined by you, that's basically stochastic terrorism. It is reckless and irresponsible, and not legitimate debate (ignore whether or not it is true). The victim's veto.