Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 3 of Hearts, "No Harm"

Okay, my industry lobbyists in training. You've said "no problem" over and over. You've dismissed problems as attributable to bad apples, or diminished the problem as a "mere inconvenience." But people still seem to think that the problem that doesn't exist still exists. You're getting more and more press calls on the non-existent problem. What next?

i-29638c5b5008ea7c771bc8f5cc10141e-3h.jpg Simple. No harm. The problem that doesn't exist doesn't cause harm, so there's no problem. i-e0dc648787ca33ad0c73d4330ab0d631-3d.jpg

Denalists' definition of harm typically is elusive. They won't acknowledge harm until blood is spilled, but when that happens, it can always be blamed on a "bad apple."

Here's an example concerning digital video recorders and their ability to monitor every second of viewing behavior (combined with the 2 of Clubs!): "...the Information Technology Association of America...opposes television privacy proposals. 'We're not quite sure there really is a harm that needs to be addressed,' said Mark Uncapher...of the ITAA. Uncapher said most digital video recorder-makers have strict internal privacy policies, and called the scenarios...'phantom' privacy problems." Lisa Friedman, But Who's Watching Tivo? Congress Concerned About Makers Selling Private Information, The Daily News of Los Angeles, Dec. 1, 2003.

More like this

Okay, you've tried denying that the problem exists, you've tried to trivialize the problem, and you've even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn't a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What's next? Consumer Education Solves the Problem that…
The Newhour had a debate tonight full of denialism provided by Paul Miller, former head of the American League of Lobbyists. It's an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how the lobbying tactics outlined in the Denialists' Deck of Cards can be employed to fight a proposal without really dealing…
At this point, the denalist engages in delay. The problem that doesn't exist, and the harms that do not occur will continue not occur in the future, if we just wait. A great "wait and see" tactic is to "shift the goal posts." The denialist does by stating, "we don't know that there is a problem…
Yesterday, I discussed how "no problem" is a chorus in denialist rhetoric. But sometimes, something bad has happened, and it's more or less impossible say "no problem" with a straight face. What can a denialist do? The 2 of Hearts, Bad apples! Yes, to the extent that something bad may have…

Or the recent SC decision with respect to the abortion ban: Future cases to overturn abortion bans need an actual pregnancy to show harm and get standing.

Chris is making a point about repetition. "No Harm" and "No Problem" are part of a chorus. The arguments get more complex, don't worry.