Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8527108">My point was harm is ambiguous, it can mean physical or non physical harm. So people take the power of that word, because it invokes physical harm in peoples minds, and use it in these conversations....I think it isn't a very helpful way to go about things. I am saying physical and mental harm are different. One of them is more easily measured. On of them is more obvious and the line of causation often more clear. We probably should be using different language if people mean text is distressing to some people for example, or if they mean it influences people to behave badly. Saying it causes harm, I find that not useful language personally (and I think it does lend itself to exaggerated claims)Also what I mean by direct harm is direct causation. You stab someone, the knife is directly harming them. But you read a book to a crowd of thousands. One person in that crowd gets a weird idea because of what you read and goes and does something, it isn't always clear how much of that is the book, versus what was going on in that person's head. Similarly, if you read something that upsets me, it isn't just the text, there is the interoperation side on my end. I am actively processing and reacting to what you say. You can read the same sentence to ten different people and they react differently. You stab ten people with knives, they all bleed.</blockquote>