Not sure what cases you are referring to, but “Hurt feelings” in India have caused multiple riots, resulting in utter carnage, spilling over to years, decades longs strings of terrorism and reprisals against minorities.
Feelings are the reason people get up to live in the morning.
I get why we used to make that statement. In a way it’s about rationality mattering, and how feelings being hurt are different from actual hurt.
In the context of this conversation, I’ll argue its an un-pragmatic dismissal of a pertinent fact.
I’ll make this argument: “At the scales we are talking, and across the breath of human cultures, feelings end up mattering.”
That's the kind of lame excuse that fascists and elitists always resort to in order to increase their power and shut down speech they dislike. Freedom of expression is absolutely essential to the long-term future of humanity. If preserving that fundamental human right means that some emotionally fragile people start riots then so be it, that is an acceptable cost.
Are you saying that hurt feelings aren't harm? Words can hurt too you know, e.g. popular black footballers getting racist abuse anytime they go online is harmful to their mental health; trans people being told to kill themselves because they're Satan's spawn and pedophiles and what not also take severe hits to their mental health.
There is a critical principle in English common law: de minimus non curat lex.
Paraphrased, the law does not concern itself with trifles. Mean words causing hurt feelings qualify. I acknowledge that it can be a very big deal for the person on the receiving end: it's the sort of thing we should (and do) socially discourage, or moderate (or not) at the platform level.
But no, I don't think it rises to the level of harm, in that there should be no remedy under law, criminal nor tortuous.
you need to acknowledge the difference between telling you to kill yourself vs killing you. One is clearly more harmful than the other.
then imagine living with free speech vs with no free speech. One is clearly better.
combining the two ideas, there is always going to be a gray zone in the middle. It is not obvious at all that where you want to draw the line is optimal.
Pain is different from harm you know. When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up.
Anyway, I'll believe that "progressives" actually care about how others feel when they start treating those not on board with their ideology with anything other than scorn or schadenfreude.
> When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up
And this is of course not what anyone is talking about, thanks for the useless strawman. It's stuff like football players being told to die, compared to monkeys, and mannequins with their names being hanged from bridges (Vinicius Jr) only because their skin colour is black. Or monkey chants and bananas being thrown at them.
It's not a strawman but the kinds of views those calling to be tough on hate crimes often espouse.
And no, celebrities getting unwanted attention is not a harm or even an issue that anyone should care about. They can go wash away their tears with the stacks of cash they leech from forced public broadcast fees and other puplic funds for all I care. Or just go play for their own country.
