Conversation

Also, the word 'nonharmful' is lifting a lot of weight. Everyone will say yeah, nonharmful things are fine! yet find ways of explaining how the things they don't like are harmful, actually. e.g., anti-gay people are very concerned about the harm to the 'fabric of society.' 1/
Quote Tweet
If someone has some controversial, nonharmful preference, "how did you get that preference" shouldn't be relevant. If it is, it means we're viewing the preference as an unfortunate mistake that we only accept when we see the person as a sufficiently helpless victim.
Show this thread
Replying to
People almost never decouple their concept of 'harm' from their concept of 'what they judge and exclude'. By definition, if you judge and exclude a thing, it's *because* you believe it's harmful. So the real question becomes, how do we evaluate our concept of harm? 2/
1
40
1. if the harm is abstracted (e.g., damage to society! confusion around natural roles!) 2. if it's based on horror or disgust to others ("they're fucked up in the head!") 3. if the harm is *created by the belief it's harmful* ("if they do it they'll be outcast/lowlife")
4
53
If your concept of harm is abstracted or driven by disgust or stigma, then there's a good chance your concept of harm isn't *really* based on harm; it's based on something else that you're subconsciously tagging as 'harm' because it's much more morally defensible.
2
81
Replying to
almost all fear is neurotic fear... our lizard brain is attuned to change. For the most part it sees it as danger. So for many the fear on both sides of any argument seem real, but most often are just challenges to their status-quo
2
Replying to
Who says it doesn't harm the fabric of society when children grow up knowing that there are 2 sexual orientations and confused about which one they are. Also the slippery slope arguments are clearly turning out to be vindicated.