but i would be surprised if the same people would claim that psychological damage and torture aren't possible (same boundary transgression)
-
-
Replying to @fronxer
what i feel might be missing is theory that situates language in a material context (instead of the other way around à la butler)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
instead of saying "your assumed-material identity is constructed in language", say "linguistic realities are a subset of material realities"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @fronxer
back to the question of who benefits: it's people who have a strong belief in 'freedom of speech' being universally and unquestionably good
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
they see the issue of 'harmful words' as a fair price to pay for the freedom, which is the greater good
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
there is a related question that's often brought up: who has (or should have) the authority to say what is or isn't harmful
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Also that we can't defeat harmful ideas if they're forced underground. I want them debated publicly so that the problem is clear.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @fronxer
But yes, I agree that undermining consensus on free speech for all does mean dominant groups will decide which ideas are harmful.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
hrmm… interesting—i was actually thinking of the opposite scenario some ppl are worried about where harm can be claimed too easily by anyone
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's an adjacent issue. Once you decide atheist ideas are harmful, you then decide where the line is. Can they express any doubt at all?
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.