• irmoz
    1·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think you realise you’re agreeing with me, lol

    Yes, harm and offence are linked, butthat doesn’t mean every offence was caused by harm. It just means every offence perceived some harm. But that harm may just be some kooky belief of theirs

    I didn’t say offence causes harm. I said harm causes offence.

    And “professional victim” tells me you’re just not taking this issue seriously.

    • Lightor@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think I am.

      They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

      Saying being offended and being damaging are inextricably linked means they are, well inextricably linked. Meaning it is impossible to seperate the two. Meaning one always comes with the other, always. This means, by your very own logic, that every instance of being offended is linked to harm and every instance of harm is linked to being offended. That is your logic, using your argument.

      I’m not taking it seriously? You said being offended and damage are inextricably linked, but don’t always correlate, and doesn’t mean one always implies the other. You’re either back peddling hard or you didn’t know what the term “inextricably linked” meant when you said it.

      Also if you think the concept of a professional victim is outlandish or some such you need to watch more Karen videos online, those people %100 exist. And me acknowledging that doesn’t make me any less serious, if anything it makes me less naive.

      • irmoz
        1·
        10 months ago

        Yes, the fact of them being linked means the offence is always to do with some perceived harm. But we must take it on a case by case basis, like I’ve said before, and determine whether harm has truly been done, or if they’re just nuts. Like the Karens you mentioned.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          Wait so now we’re at “perceived harm”, you didn’t say that at all. You did linked to harm, full stop. Those are two very diffent things.

          I originally said that being offended and harm are not connected, they are two separate things. You said I was privileged and wrong. Now you seem to slowly be back peddling to agree with me…

          • irmoz
            1·
            10 months ago

            If I’d known you’d be this pedantic, I’d have said from the start, I just thought it goes without saying - all harm has to be perceived to be known at all, doesn’t it? And can our senses not deceive us, either simply through illusion or misperception, or more deeply through our intellectual biases?

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              1·
              10 months ago

              It’s not pedantic lol. You said all offenses cause damage. You said they are inextricably linked. That’s not just a common term thrown out there in day to day convos, it has a clear and purposeful meaning. I said the two can exist seperately, you said they couldn’t, and now you’re saying they can. You’ve contradicted yourself.

              Harm is measurable, you said being offended means its damaging. Those are your words yet you’ve still not told me how eating with your elbows on the table causes damage to anyone. It can offend, so where is the damage?

              • irmoz
                1·
                10 months ago

                You said all offenses cause damage.

                We won’t move anywhere until you stop lying about this.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  I’m lying? I think you just don’t like being held accountable for the things you say because it makes it harder for you to back-peddle.

                  You said:

                  They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

                  So I guess I need to break it down and explain what you said back to you. Inextricably linked means they are impossible to separate, they are together forever and always. Now you said it is linked to “it being damaging.” You say in this very statement, very clearly, that all offenses are linked to being damaging. I’m not lying I’m just confronting you with what you said as you try to back-peddle and shift the narrative by introducing things like “perceived harm” instead of damaging like you originally said.

                  • irmoz
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm! Why on earth would i even have said that? Earlier you were claiming i said all offence was caused by harm, no idea why you switched them.

                    Also, what does damage do, my friend? When you are damaged, it harms you. And you can perceive harm anywhere if you’re warped enough.

                    Let me make this very simple. When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero. In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.

                    Are you done?