I talk a lot about the importance of minimizing harm, and want to attempt to add some *nuance* to this view, as I’ve seen some recent conversatiom #onhere related to what someone should be willing to sacrifice in service of that goal.

I believe that “minimizing harm to others” should be a guiding principle for all humans.

At its core, it’s about looking beyond self-interest to ensure that you’re not creating or perpetuating serious problems for other people. https://twitter.com/operaqueenie/status/1288893613171081216?s=21

But, as with eveeythinf, this is not always a binary choice.

Doing “the right thing” is not always clear cut.

Namely when relationships and social currency are involved, you have to also:
examine power dynamics,
anticipate outcomes (based on past evidence/history),
and make a judgement call around what “protection” and “harm” looks like for everyone involved.

All of this is to say:

If you are presented with a choice about publicly naming a harmful person or harmful act by someone influential— it’s rarely a black/white decision.

At the end of the day, all we have from human-to-human are relationships.

They are made and maintained through trust.

Relationships are also the currency of business. Our opportunities are mostly defined by our networks and what people are willing to do for us.

Our lives are powered by social contracts that we have with other people.

So when you damage trust, you violate one or many social contracts, and it can be very hard to recover.

Which means you have to calculate:
whether the offense is serious enough to call out;
what harm will come to you for calling it;
who else is connected to the situation who did no harm but could be harmed by the call out, and how they may respond;

how the public will respond to the new information;
what social capital will be lost—not just yours, but others you’re connected to/share an identity with;
if there’s actually a path to repairing the harm (if yes, be prepared to offer it alongside the call out).

All of these factors mean that every case is not one that warrants public action.

However, that *doesn’t* mean that no action is required.

And as observers, we can express our opinions on how things go down.

But what are you going to do for the person who lost everything if it all goes sideways?

Self-righteousness does not guarantee you food to eat or a roof over your head.

Marriage taught me that relationships should not be a series of battles over what’s right and wrong.

Being “right” all the time is the quickest route to being alone.

This is also why I talk about the fact that any of us can be a good or bad guy, depending on the context.

These things are highly subjective. https://twitter.com/operaqueenie/status/1298742214130929667?s=21

I always try to reframe right/wrong: what’s most effective at achieving the goal?

I love talking about morality, but when it comes to survival and natural selection, what wins out are whatever traits ensure that people stay alive and procreate.

From that view, reason and morality are irrelevant.

It’s a bit scary, but true.

So, I guess the TL;DR on minimizing harm:

Read the room. Make plans accordingly.