I’ve had this debate before and was unable to come to a conclusion. It seems to me that any criticism, no matter how valid, could be characterized as harassment.
What do you guys think?
Is there a heuristic for determining which one a statement is?
Does everything just exist on a continuum between the two?
Is this harassment?

  • @ThannOP
    1•2 years ago

    I really appreciate how through this response is =]

    Or I do the same thing in private. That says something about what i’m trying to achieve.

    I agree that the forum in which the critical statement is made is important context to the question of whether or not it’s harassment. I guess this means my examples are incomplete and can’t be answered =/

    … is probably a factual statement, and a true one

    I would argue that factuality is irrelevant to harassment. For instance, “slurs” are typically factual, but are clearly intending to harass.

    He’s dead.

    It makes a lot of sense that you cant harass dead people, but its conceivable you could collaterally harass someone by harassing a dead person. For instance, maybe “Hitler was a bad guy” could be harassment when said to a skinheads face while shaking your fist 🤔

    i don’t think you can say something and that somehow implicitly says something about the supporters or opponents.

    If I say “trump is an effing r-tard” at a trump rally, I think somepeople would call that harassment >

    • @hendrik
      3•2 years ago

      so everything boils down to context, purpose and intent. saying that to skinheads is meant to offend. calling trump names infront of his supporters is meant to offend.

      i’d say critique and harassment are two totally different things. a statement can be one of that, both or neither.

      i’m happy with the wikipedia definition of harassment. It’s harassment if the only purpose is to annoy. Regardless of the statement made. You could say something and it’s okay or call someone every night at 3am and tell the same sentence, then hang up… and it’s harassment. It’s not really directly related to the sentence.

      The fine line between something that’s annoying but valid critizism and something that’s not is probaby whether it fits another objective purpose apart from annoying someone.