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/
-
-
Show this thread
-
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")
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
More people loving more people seems like more fabric.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is that we are poking a system without any serious impact study, well defined goals, etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.