on “spiritual damage”

in arguments, i sometimes say “this is bad because it damages our souls.”

i think i got it from david graeber.

but what does it actually mean?

it's probably easier to understand what it does, which is, i think, create a sort of rhetorically unassailable position. what are you going to say? nuh-uh! it doesn't damage our souls! are we both just going to assume we know exactly what the other person means by that? no.

ime people just let it slide, probably taking it as some version of “damn, okay. ike really doesn't like this thing” but in a way that feels like i've managed to impress my superior sensitivity upon them. i'm a person who is concerned with humanity's preternatural wellbeing, and you are not, so surely my position is more considerate than yours.

and what i'm realizing, that's a cheap/lazy/pointless sort of thing to do unless i'm willing to really elaborate on what i mean. not to say that we shouldn't contemplate our spirituality, just that said contemplations shouldn't be used flippantly as a tool of persuasion. that's bad for our souls.