3 ms·
If there’s an effort to protect a specified group of people from a specific harm, why would you infer that the specific harm is considered less harmful to other
by eyelidlessness 3y ago
If there’s an effort to protect a specified group of people from a specific harm, why would you infer that the specific harm is considered less harmful to others outside the specified group? There are much more reasonable inferences available if you don’t reflexively view it through a competitive lens.
- h2odragon 3y agoindeed. I read it as "we're targeting specific scams aimed at veterans and others aimed at children" and my first thought was areas of the insurance industry selling "coverage" that doesn't cover. Those scams aren't targeting the general population to begin with.
- BobbyJo 3y agoBecause otherwise the group wouldn't be specified?
- brookst 3y agoThere’s a conspiratorial way of thinking about it, which says “they could have protected everyone, but chose to only protect this group, therefore they must think it is ok for these harms to fall on others, therefore [insert innuendo or conspiracy]” And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse” Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.
- BobbyJo 3y agoId distinguish between the two by asking if the group is specified in policy or in incident documentation. The former would infer uneven application of policy, whereas the latter is what you're referencing.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoSibling response posited a rather compelling reason to specify the group otherwise. It’s by far the most obvious explanation that comes to my mind as well.