of course it is lacking. because different people have widely different ideas of harmful speech.
i’ve been told my mere presence, doing nothing but minding my business, is harmful and inciteful. i didn’t even need to talk to be considered harmful.
and lots of people think this way. racists certainly thing the mere presence of non-white folks is harmful. they feel normalization of lgbt folks and lgbt language, is also inciteful and harmful.
you need to provide a definition that sets limits on what harm is. and if you base it on ‘how people feel’, well you’ve set yourself up for disaster because people’s feelings are radically different.
for me it would be something that is objectively harmful, not something rooted in feelings or perceptions. but in today’s work that definition is not popular, and it is more about ‘making people feel unsafe’, even if it’s saying you like peanuts and they are allergic to peanuts.
From the post you are replying to:
Do you feel that definition is lacking? If so, what should be clarified?
of course it is lacking. because different people have widely different ideas of harmful speech.
i’ve been told my mere presence, doing nothing but minding my business, is harmful and inciteful. i didn’t even need to talk to be considered harmful.
and lots of people think this way. racists certainly thing the mere presence of non-white folks is harmful. they feel normalization of lgbt folks and lgbt language, is also inciteful and harmful.
you need to provide a definition that sets limits on what harm is. and if you base it on ‘how people feel’, well you’ve set yourself up for disaster because people’s feelings are radically different.
for me it would be something that is objectively harmful, not something rooted in feelings or perceptions. but in today’s work that definition is not popular, and it is more about ‘making people feel unsafe’, even if it’s saying you like peanuts and they are allergic to peanuts.