Yeah, it's a saying, but unfortunately it's nonsense. Non-physical bullying can drive people to suicide, or traumatise them for life. And insensitive discussion of painful topics can dredge up old trauma, etc. You're free not to care about all of that, but pretending it doesn't exist is just wrong.
Bullying falls under intent, so that isn't really on point.
Who defines what insensitive means in a public forum? As a willing participant in the discussion, the onus is on you to opt out if the discussion makes you uncomfortable. Nobody is targeting you.
If the world has to censor all public discussion that may be painful or dredge up old trauma for some random person, then it is going to get extremely quiet.
> Bullying falls under intent, so that isn't really on point.
As a response to you, true. It was just one of the most obvious disproofs of the 'sticks and stones' adage.
> Who defines what insensitive means in a public forum? As a willing participant in the discussion, the onus is on you to opt out if the discussion makes you uncomfortable. Nobody is targeting you.
Who defines any of our social or moral concepts? I'm not arguing for some kind of language police, I'm saying I care about whether my words are likely to cause harm, and I think other people should too.
> If the world has to censor all public discussion that may be painful or dredge up old trauma for some random person, then it is going to get extremely quiet.
I think you're creating a dichotomy where actually there's a massive continuum. You can care about the way your words affect other people, and modify them accordingly where appropriate, without self-censoring every thought that could possibly hurt anyone.
