• Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You said all offenses cause damage.

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

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year 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?

                  • Lightor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm!

                    Jesus dude, you are really trying to dance to the point of me needing to break it down, ok here we go.

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

                    So someone being offended is inextricably linked to something. Ok, that part I hope you get, I mean you wrote it. Now what is it linked to. It is linked to “the fact of it being damaging”. Now what is it? It is the offense. So restated the sentence would be: “the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of the offense being damaging”. Now if the offense is damaging it would cause harm, by your very own words: “When you are damaged, it harms you”. So lets put this all together. Someone being offended is linked to them being damaged by that offense, which means that would experience harm.

                    When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero.

                    No and no. People can get offended by something that causes no harm to them. A person can get offended that I fly a certain teams sports flag, that causes zero harm. Also zero is the absence of anything, so it is not an amount.

                    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.

                    Ok, now I love this. I’ve been in software engineering for over a decade so lets look at this. I would say if you have a container with 2 variables, then in this case one variable would be null, which is the absence of value, not 0 value like you stated. If a variable has null value it has no reference to the heap, meaning it is nothing. So in that situation, the “offense” container would have only 1 value, offense, alone and by itself without damage.

                    Are you done?

                    I mean, that’s up to you. I can keep explaining to you how you’re wrong in a buncha different ways if you like.