Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8527256"><p>Because you might be talking about someone being uncomfortable about a bit of text, you might be talking about someone being physically beaten to death because of a text, and you might be talking about someone feeling excluded because of a text. The problem with Harm as a term here is it is a powerful word that rides the more severe connotation of physical harm. You see this all the time. People say "this causes harm" as if it is the most terrible thing on earth, like it is responsible for murder and needs to be stopped. But then you dig in and it turns out three people on twitter find it morally objectionable for a  reason many people don't agree with. I think the problem with it is has both become a charge (this causes harm)---that is often not thoroughly examine---and it is an ambiguous word that carries more power because of its ambiguity. Again if non-physical harm is as bad as you are saying, you should be able to say non-physical harm, or mental distress or whatever it is you are concerned about, and achieve the same result. But my point is the reason I think people may not want to do that is because they know when you get more specific, people probably won't take it as seriously because they are more worried about Harm (which could potentially mean something very very serious), than about minor specific instances of harm.</p></blockquote><p></p>