• elfin8er@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, what may be harmful to one person, may not be harmful to another person.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If a thing is harmful to any person, it’s harmful. Pretty simple.

      People say what you just said when they’re trying to justify harming other (usually marginalized) groups. Stopping another person or group from being harmed does not equal harm against you.

      Edit: I understand it’s not that black and white. It’s not always the case, just pointing out that many people do use that argument in bad faith.

      • elfin8er@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So do you think content including alcohol should be banned? It could be argued that it harms those who struggle with alcoholism but doesn’t effect those who don’t. At the same time, I think all of the “non-alcoholic alcohol” that I keep seeing on YouTube is just silly.

      • Obsession@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every topic could be considered “harmful” to someone, somewhere on this planet.

        Like someone else mentioned, content involving alcohol could be harmful to alcoholics. Content involving drugs could be harmful to addicts. Content discussing SA/Rape could be harmful to survivors.

        Discussions on controversial topics will always be harmful to someone. Just a few posts up from this one was a discussion about Quran burning. That’s harmful to devout and fundamentalist muslims, should that be banned?

        Then let’s not even get into the subject of humour. What one person considers banter could be considered harmful by another. Ironic communities suddenly become harmful as soon as the irony is lost on a single person (RIP 2balkan4u).

        Harmful means something different to everyone. Trying to apply a blanket definition to it will just stifle all discussion, or turn your community into a pure hugbox.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Harmful means something different to everyone

          We can start by distinguishing between harmful and offensive.

          • we previously had the examples like “your right to swing your arms stops at my face” or “can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater” where words or actions were prohibited because they directly harm others

          • burning the Bible/Torah/Quran/flag is offensive, NOT harmful. The relevant group you’re trying to piss off has a right to be pissed off, and you’re not immune from the consequences of your words, but no actual harm

          • spreading falsehoods about vaccination leading to people avoiding vaccination causes actual disease and death. You’re indirectly harming others

          So you can make the argument that we’re just making the same type of limits that we always had but adjusted for modern realities.

        • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just had to look up that Balkan4u incident, I must have been out of the loop.

          Wow. Reddit admins are a dumpster fire.