4 ms·

If both sides agree on a standard definition of harm, maybe some of the debate could be solved. For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm? I saw a lo

by afpx 2y ago

If both sides agree on a standard definition of harm, maybe some of the debate could be solved. For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm? I saw a local government debate recently about a local policy that would require significant costs to remedy. Proponents of the change say that harm is coming soon, because it has happened elsewhere. Is that enough reason to redirect funds from important services, especially when there’s no evidence that the proposed remedies are effective? Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory and inaccurate label by one side or the other. Pragmatism seems to be dead.

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
<< Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory label. Yep. I have mostly withdrawn from most conversations on the subject given the level of irrationality and, on both sides mind, layers of unstated assumptions that are almost never explored openly or in good faith. << For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm? I would argue that it is, but its impact should be minimal. It is effectively impossible to argue away someone's feelings. If they feel harmed, threatened, fearful, sad, angry, depressed, saying "don't" won't help and that is regardless of whether those feelings are justified or not. There is a reason for it. Feelings are by their very nature not quite open to logic. But then.. I have a general problem with reorganizing the world based on 'good vibes'. Actual freedom is only freedom if other people can do things that can make people uncomfortable. In other words, perception of harm to one person is a good time to another. << Pragmatism seems to be dead. I hesitate on that front a little. If I were to guess, I would argue that the pragmatism is very strong now, but it is wielded in the name of a specific cause. In other words, any means necessary are used to get to the desired point ( again, both sides -- if we accept US political framework ).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Potential harm can definitely be actual harm. Some folks use intimidation to control others behavior. Intimidation can be seen as potential harm, but if people are intimidated into changing their behavior because of fear of violence, them that is actual harm. I'm thinking of the January 6 2017 riot at the Capitol. The vice president could very well have caved to those chanting "hang Mike Pence" out of fear.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    Not going to lie, this is mildly fascinating, but I am not sure if enough time has passed to allow detached analysis of the event just yet. Still, if all it takes is fear, woulnd't it almost automatically remove all responsibility from the person claiming this? I am not sure this is a valid excuse for government officials with 24/7 protection and multiple agencies looking after their well-being.
- lazide 2y ago
  The issue with taking feelings too seriously in leadership or civic discussion, is that anyone can feel anything for any reason. Or pretend to. And since they don’t need to be based on anything factual, then what? For example if we can’t say ‘stop’ or ‘suck it up’, then those with the most unreasonable or unaddressable feelings end up driving everything, eh?

by afpx 2y ago

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago

<< Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory label. Yep. I have mostly withdrawn from most conversations on the subject given the level of irrationality and, on both sides mind, layers of unstated assumptions that are almost never explored openly or in good faith. << For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm? I would argue that it is, but its impact should be minimal. It is effectively impossible to argue away someone's feelings. If they feel harmed, threatened, fearful, sad, angry, depressed, saying "don't" won't help and that is regardless of whether those feelings are justified or not. There is a reason for it. Feelings are by their very nature not quite open to logic. But then.. I have a general problem with reorganizing the world based on 'good vibes'. Actual freedom is only freedom if other people can do things that can make people uncomfortable. In other words, perception of harm to one person is a good time to another. << Pragmatism seems to be dead. I hesitate on that front a little. If I were to guess, I would argue that the pragmatism is very strong now, but it is wielded in the name of a specific cause. In other words, any means necessary are used to get to the desired point ( again, both sides -- if we accept US political framework ).

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Potential harm can definitely be actual harm. Some folks use intimidation to control others behavior. Intimidation can be seen as potential harm, but if people are intimidated into changing their behavior because of fear of violence, them that is actual harm. I'm thinking of the January 6 2017 riot at the Capitol. The vice president could very well have caved to those chanting "hang Mike Pence" out of fear.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  Not going to lie, this is mildly fascinating, but I am not sure if enough time has passed to allow detached analysis of the event just yet. Still, if all it takes is fear, woulnd't it almost automatically remove all responsibility from the person claiming this? I am not sure this is a valid excuse for government officials with 24/7 protection and multiple agencies looking after their well-being.
lazide 2y ago
The issue with taking feelings too seriously in leadership or civic discussion, is that anyone can feel anything for any reason. Or pretend to. And since they don’t need to be based on anything factual, then what? For example if we can’t say ‘stop’ or ‘suck it up’, then those with the most unreasonable or unaddressable feelings end up driving everything, eh?