Coming to this late, but I am interested to know if your view is still the same as when you wrote this 13 hours ago.
I don't think you have really answered the question about the logical incoherence put to you in another comment [1], which was replying to this comment by you (now flagged, sadly):
> If a bunch of people are saying "this thing hurts me" and your stance is "well you shouldn't be hurt so shut-up".
> Yeah, you're an asshole.
Honestly, genuinely: my feelings are hurt by reading your comments here - I find it a bit chilling, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm a free speech advocate, and I perceive (rightly or wrongly) a frightening swing away from free speech values in the last few years, and your comment triggered uncomfortable feelings. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps my view is biased somehow. We could debate it, and maybe you'd point out something I hadn't considered, and maybe I'd change my view. But until then, the fact is, my feelings are hurt by your comments. And I'm definitely not the only one - there's more than a "bunch" of free speech advocates in the world who find this line of argument chilling.
As a free speech advocate, I believe you should have the right to say what you want, and that my hurt feelings should not prevent you from doing so. But don't you see the logical incoherence in your position? How can you argue that you are not an asshole under your own logic? (To be clear, I am not calling you an asshole, just pointing out that your own logic would seem to conclude that you are an example of one, while also containing the statement that you are not one.)
You call people assholes, dismiss people's arguments out of hand, and quote people saying things they didn't even say (in quote marks, too). I think you're just a dick. I'm glad you consider yourself a free speech absolutist though, that's something I guess.
I never said you violated anyone's free speech. I shouldn't have called you a dick though, I just got frustrated. I was trying to make a nuanced point, maybe it was a dumb one, but if so, it would be nice to be put right rather than dismissed.
Please don't post this sort of flamewar rhetoric to HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. It just dumbs everything down further and makes it even meaner.
Plenty of users are making similar points to yours in thoughtful ways that are within in intended spirit of the site. If you'd please do that instead, or else refrain from posting, we'd appreciate it.
Okay, so the response is, "You deserve to be hurt because you're harmful so shut up"?
Anyway,
You're twisting words to try to pretend that "woke scolding" exclusively means "asking people to stop one-sidedly hurting others for no real reason".
So I'll ask again in a narrower form that is harder to deliberately misinterpret:
Telling me I'm privileged (especially as a rationale for excluding me from certain groups at work or school) hurts me. It makes me angry and/or sad. What's your response?
I personally dislike the conversation around "privilege" since the word invokes an objective response, instead of the subjective one that's intended.
Worse, the whole concept of privilege is meant to be academic and thoughtful. Instead, it gets used as a weapon to dismiss opinions and belittle a speaker.
If a completely new word had been invented to describe the concept, I doubt the concept would illicit the reaction it does. But given the reactions people do have, I avoid it.
> The idea that one person saying "this hurts me please stop" is logically or morally equal to the person doing the harm
You are saying that a person saying "this hurts me" means that they are actually being harmed. I don't agree.
People frequently lie, usually with a motive.
And if you think words can cause harm, than perhaps you can see that the words "this hurts me" can be used to get what you want, your motive, and that can cause harm.
