I was thrilled that my students loved John Stuart Mill & his radical defense of freedom. Mill says the only justification for interfering with freedom is to prevent harm. Then I discovered that students defined "harm" as emotional harm. So no free speech that hurts feelings! 1/2

— Carl (@HistoryBoomer) February 27, 2021

Students were surprised that Mill didn't mean emotional pain. They think that way automatically. Personal pain takes priority. They like the idea of freedom, but not if the freedom upsets anyone. Not all agreed, of course. Some students clearly liked Mill on his own terms. 2/2

— Carl (@HistoryBoomer) February 27, 2021

You are learning a valuable lesson here. The woke strategy focuses on language for a very good reason. You don't need to change the law if you can change the meaning of the words written in the law. 1/3

— Shirtless in Seattle (@drocto) February 27, 2021

In this case they have convinced a generation to down define "harm".
This works in conjunction with woke belief that "intent doesn't matter", but instead it's how something is received by the less powerful group member in the interaction. The claim of harm cannot be disputed. 2/3

— Shirtless in Seattle (@drocto) February 27, 2021

It is indeed interesting how “reception” has overshadowed “intent” in so many cases (this explains, too, the classics brouhaha).

— Daniel Mendelsohn (@DAMendelsohnNYC) February 27, 2021

Yes, not an accident. It is part of CT. So anyone who was taught a CT worldview will hold this as one of their tenets. It is why so many people from more elite colleges and who have more degrees tend to be very illiberal during the past decade or so. They are now pushing to K-12.

— Shirtless in Seattle (@drocto) February 27, 2021

This is a remarkable shot/chaser pic.twitter.com/6fLJKulLjV

— Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) February 25, 2021