3 ms·
The "relentless" part is critical for whether insults (or even just continued asking of questions or repeating points) are harassment. Especially if the insult
by jarcane 12y ago
The "relentless" part is critical for whether insults (or even just continued asking of questions or repeating points) are harassment. Especially if the insult isn't profane - e.g. "idiot". To what extent is it OK to tell someone they are being an "idiot" or "are an idiot" when they say something idiotic. Some people have even taken to being insulted by being called "sexist" or "racist".
This is another sort of claim that pops up a lot in freeze peach[1] debates, where we pretend that reasonable people do not exist, and treat all claims as somehow equal and thus intractable. This is complete nonsense, and something the sane society largely doesn't have as much of a problem with as the internet does, at least as argued by those still desperate to defend the right to an audience for invective.
[1]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/05/free-speech-vs-freeze-peach/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/05/free-sp...
- josephlord 12y agoI do agree with you that it can be picked apart but it is very hard to do with simple rules. Society does have problems with it in many areas but most noticeably to me around the intersections of race, religion and politics. Can criticising the Israeli government be anti-semitic? (It probably can be but the accusation is levelled as a defence against normal criticism). At what point does criticism of Islam or particular practices become problematic, Islamaphobic or racist? There isn't a clear line that everyone can agree on. I think we probably agree on the answers we would like for these things and especially our views about "those still desperate to defend the right to an audience for invective" but it isn't always easy to set rules and operate systems to keep it working.