Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It’s hard for me to understand this perspective. Don’t you see how this would create blind spots in academic discourse?

> Abusive

Is this the right word?



sort by: page size:

It really bothers me to see the very serious and very subjective word “abusive” used objectively here like I’m expected to agree with 100% of Google’s criteria.

How is the term abusive?

I think “abuse” is an ill-defined enough term that I’m not sure it adds clarity to this discussion without setting out a definition. Its an important subject and might be a really important lens through which to view this, but as someone who has been searching for a really clear-cut definition of “emotional abuse” since my childhood, and who has seen a lot of acrimonious conversations about it since then...I worry that the framing adds more smoke than light to the discussion. :(

Do you have a good definition? One whereby a scrupulous person can confidently judge “am I acting abusively?” correctly?


How is reading an article abusive?

Both could be considered abusive depending on your perspective

Your core idea is true, but such analyses are typically not done because the answer isn't considered relevant. An advocate would argue that the concept of "abusive" is culturally relative, so we must draw the line of abusiveness in a way that avoids disparate impact.

Abusive?

I think the people getting abused have a fair amount of say in what's abusive and what's not.

This is circular reasoning.

If I can define X as abusive (where X is something I don't like), then I am a person getting abused. So now that allows me to define whatever I want as abusive?


I addressed this in another downthread reply. Briefly, I agree. My quibble isn’t with the term “abuse”, only the nature of its intent.

How is abusive defined?

It is systematic abuse; I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about it being abused...

How is it abusive?

What exactly do you mean by abusive?

The position being put forth here is frankly rather horrific and abusive, and on multiple levels. Normally I'd aim to provide a more substantive response, but I'm not even sure where to begin.

How do you define abusive?

Saying that some people need to be subjected to abuse is a terrible point of view.

It feels like you’re arguing definitions. If you had to restate “abuse != love” without using either word, how would you state it? I suspect you might find more people agree than this thread indicates.

You've misread something here. They didn't say it was inherently abusive, they said they hate seeing people abused because of it.

Seems rather disingenuous to me.

Then why don't they say "... anyone is abused ..."? They'd also have to create a measurable definition of what qualifies as abuse; but why not?

"feels" and "uncomfortable" are weasel words that get be used to interpret this sort of thing broadly as anyone wants. And don't for a second think anger-baitng bloggers won't do exactly that. Individual perception of actions in a social environment are different from intention which is different from the average LKML reader's perception. Critics' have alrady found that their bread and butter exists in the disparity among the three.

next

Legal | privacy