Originally Posted by Maya
We are free from other forms of harm... so we're able to move on to making society a less toxic place for all peoples, a less bigoted place. It's a shift of focus and that's not a bad thing. You're comparing "less harmful" things to "more harmful" things in an attempt to invalidate the former, but they're both bad and any work to reduce either of them is good.
It's about the legitimate severity of the harm. "They're both bad" - Not all bad is created equal. To each bad, a proportionate response. Additionally, the increasingly subjectivised concept of 'harm' (read the first paper) makes 'bad' an increasingly subjectivised term.
It's exactly as Hasram says "
Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood".
Originally Posted by Maya
By separating threats into "true" and "soft," you're invalidating "soft" threats. Do you understand the implications of the language you chose there?
I'm putting them into perspective. I'm ranking them against each other. Because yes, there is a difference in severity.
---------------------
Off to bed. Will get back to this thread when I wake.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2020 at 08:20 PM.