In Defense of Intent

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

Like knowing that requiring them to fill out a survey while understanding the long history of having to prove your intelligence? Yes, exactly like that.. 

There is no way somebody not wanting to fill out a survey could know somebody would make that connection. Not wanting to fill out a survey isn't inherently "evil".

9 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

But that's the point - you can't just throw out one and include the other. 

Uh, I'm not sure I did that.

9 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

The driver would be likely found liable because in most states in the US the driver is liable for any accidents with pedestrians, since it's their property. This varies from state to state, but it's a very common case. Negligence is immaterial here any more than it is when you rear end another car; only the fact of the action matters in those cases. 

Now you could argue that this SHOULD NOT be the case, but that isn't the point; the point is that this is legally currently the case in most states. More important to this, it really depends a lot on the actions taken before intent actually matters. There are plenty of crimes where intent matters not in the least. 

No I don't think this the majority rule in most states. In fact, most states still use the concept of negligence.

But even if that is true, and I don't think it is, at least the offending conduct to be avoided is well specified.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

There is no way somebody not wanting to fill out a survey could know somebody would make that connection.

Why? I knew it. I got that information from diversity training. Why is that so insane to you?

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Uh, I'm not sure I did that.

That's what you did when you said that intent matters but action doesn't. 

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

No I don't think this the majority rule in most states. In fact, most states still use the concept of negligence.

For some things, sure. But in your example? Nope. Again, lots of different laws around lots of different behaviors and situations. It's not easy to reduce these things one way or another to simply it always mattering or mattering more.

Mostly, you enjoy centering it on the people causing harm. That's really clear. From the perspective of the pedestrian, do they care if they're the person that was hit? Does intent solve their medical bills? Does knowing the driver didn't mean to help them with physical therapy? 

[Ran]

27 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

I think they're possibly using that as an excuse, but most of the time the cases are not particularly minor and the person has been warned several times.

Multiple warnings and still doing it sure sounds like being able to use context to determine intent.

27 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

And in the above case, you can establish harm with extemporaneous data (did that person tell other people, did they tell their therapist, etc).

What one person tells a therapist or a friend may be seen by others as entirely unremarkable and not worthy of concern. This doesn't change their feelings, but it's in no way criteria one can use to quantify harm.

27 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

Again, it's FAR easier to establish harm than intent. 

Not in the subjective case where we're talking about people feeling something or other and not objectively quantifiable harm (such as loss of position, loss of wealth, etc.). If you can't show clear, objective harm, then the intent to cause harm really has to be established. If you can't do that, then yes, warn the person that they should not do that again, and if they do it will be seen as intentional, and escalate from there as necessary.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Who here is more morally culpable? Person A or C?

Joss Whedon.

[Iskaral Pust]

It seems like the debate here is the culpability of intent versus (willful?) negligence.

The OP scenario was nicely cut-and-dried, and most micro aggressions sound pretty over-sensitive in isolation, and perhaps even with full context.

So what’s our moral burden to avoid (willful?) negligence leading to emotional harm even when there is no intent to harm?  How much responsibility do we have to anticipate the subjective sensitivities of others?  It’s not zero*; it’s just that some sensitivities feel normal (have been socialized) while others don’t, which suggests that they’re mutable cultural artifacts open to negotiation rather than objective moral touchstones.

*because we have elaborate cultural constructs of expected consideration and behavior.  Just ask anyone on the autism spectrum who struggles with these. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Not in the subjective case where we're talking about people feeling something or other and not objectively quantifiable harm (such as loss of position, loss of wealth, etc.). If you can't show clear, objective harm, then the intent to cause harm really has to be established. If you can't do that, then yes, warn the person that they should not do that again, and if they do it will be seen as intentional, and escalate from there as necessary.

It's actually somewhat worse than that because the "harm" that cannot be objectively quantified can cut both ways leaving no way to avoid somebody being "harmed". To avoid any real life examples, suppose there is a Person A who strongly believes that all non-alcoholic carbonated beverages should be referred to as soda. Person A claims that referring to them as something else causes him harm and repeatedly warns everyone around him who does not comply. Thus far, it is possible to appease Person A by doing what many communities do to appease the people who weaponize victimhood: restrict everyone's freedom of speech by forcing them to always say soda.

However, suppose that in the same community there exists a Person B who strongly believes that all non-alcoholic carbonated beverages should be referred to as pop. Person B also claims that referring to them as something else causes him harm and also repeatedly warns everyone around him who does not comply. Now what? The only way out is to impose even more restrictions on everyone's freedom of speech and simply declare the entire topic taboo in the presence of both A and B and forcing everyone to call it soda in the presence of A alone and pop in the presence of B alone, but at some point people will balk at such restrictions. It's also possible to just tell both A and B to grow thicker skins and stop whining or perhaps A and B will just have a fight and the issue will be decided that way once and for all (one of these or the other is probably what our society will eventually work it's way around to with regards to the more realistic examples).

[Larry of the Lawn]

These 'microagression' examples are easy to laugh at or dismiss but they are the same in principle to bias in standardized testing, discriminatory housing practices, lack of wage parity, police brutality, racist cops, and all other symptoms of systemic racism, sexism, etc.  

It might seem pretty or trivial if we zoom in on the examples in the OP, but the reason 'the left' brings these things up is that when they are stacked up a million-fold the harm is very real and not minor.  A cop can act with the olausible deniability that their violent behavior isn't racist, but when the outcomes are obviously indicative of a pattern of systemic racist behavior it doesn't really matter what we think the intent is.  

On a micro level the 'aggressions' might seem insignificant, but this shit adds up and in other instances has deadly and tragic consequences.  

To me this argument sounds like the old false dichotomy of "do you support equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?"

 

[Knight Of Winter]

What kind of tyrannical mindset is this? "Fill this survey, else I'll be offended and you'll have to apologize". It turns something as innocuous as politely asking for a favour into a outright blackmail. I'm mortified by the idea that this is how a world should work.
  

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It seems your just paying attention to the more vitriolic actions/ rhetoric from Biden voters, liberals, police protesters, and leftists in regards to the groups you’ve listed.

One could easily claim to have never witnessed anyone walking on eggshells from offending Biden supporters, the middle-lower class, and police protesters.

Guilty as charged . I quickly lost interest of Trump and his pitiful rhetorics a long time ago and don't pay much attention to him at all. That his son is spewing some angry nonsense is no surprise at all - in fact it would be a surprise if he didn't do that.

There's one difference, though. Nor Trump nor his cronies never preached any sensitivity: in fact they built their premise on exactly the opposite platform (really, is there any group that Trump failed to offend in the last few years?). Whatever else he is, at least he's consistent in that regard: he neither preaches sensitivity nor does he apply it himself. It's a portion of the left, on the other hand, who promote it and then choose to selectively apply it only to certain groups and not to others. In fact. I'd support that left has any kind of position - as long as it's internally consistent and applied to everyone equally. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

What kind of tyrannical mindset is this? "Fill this survey, else I'll be offended and you'll have to apologize". It turns something as innocuous as politely asking for a favour into a outright blackmail. I'm mortified by the idea that this is how a world should work.
  

Guilty as charged . I quickly lost interest of Trump and his pitiful rhetorics a long time ago and don't pay much attention to him at all. That his son is spewing some angry nonsense is no surprise at all - in fact it would be a surprise if he didn't do that.

There's one difference, though. Nor Trump nor his cronies never preached any sensitivity: in fact they built their premise on exactly the opposite platform (really, is there any group that Trump failed to offend in the last few years?). Whatever else he is, at least he's consistent in that regard: he neither preaches sensitivity nor does he apply it himself. It's a portion of the left, on the other hand, who promote it and then choose to selectively apply it only to certain groups and not to others. In fact. I'd support that left has any kind of position - as long as it's internally consistent and applied to everyone equally. 

Are you kidding?  Their entire shtick is victimhood and being unfairly treated.  Hahahahahhaa!

[Knight Of Winter]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Are you kidding?  Their entire shtick is victimhood and being unfairly treated.  Hahahahahhaa!

Well, I stand corrected in that case. So my message to the left would be: be better than Trump. Let your words and actions match.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Knight Of Winter said:

Well, I stand corrected in that case. So my message to the left would be: be better than Trump. Let your words and actions match.

I'm not sure how that'd be an issue here or what you're objecting to. In the case of the survey, how hard is it to understand that black people have been tested over and over again when their white colleagues have not in order to demonstrate their competence? This isn't something that is some shocking secret; it's a general pattern of behavior that has been around since after slavery was abolished. 

You might not know it - in which case why not? - but why is it so horrible to actually have to think about these things? 

I've heard a lot about these sorts of things and the excuse is always the same - because I  am not offended by this, you shouldn't be either, and I'll be pissed off if you are. 

[Knight Of Winter]

3 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

I'm not sure how that'd be an issue here or what you're objecting to. In the case of the survey, how hard is it to understand that black people have been tested over and over again when their white colleagues have not in order to demonstrate their competence? This isn't something that is some shocking secret; it's a general pattern of behavior that has been around since after slavery was abolished. 

And you fancy an act of not wanting to fill a questionnaire  as some pervasive method of continuing the racial oppression? 
 

14 minutes ago, KalbearAnon said:

I've heard a lot about these sorts of things and the excuse is always the same - because I  am not offended by this, you shouldn't be either, and I'll be pissed off if you are. 

I get you, and such mindset indeed is simplistic. Different people have different standards, and I'm all for trying to being respectful and non-assholery towards each other. But there has to be a golden line somewhere, and I'm arguing that "I'm arbitrarily deciding what I'm offended by, and the entire world should re-arrange itself according to my standards of what's offensive and what's not" is far crossing that line.

[Larry of the Lawn]

30 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And you fancy an act of not wanting to fill a questionnaire  as some pervasive method of continuing the racial oppression? 
 

I get you, and such mindset indeed is simplistic. Different people have different standards, and I'm all for trying to being respectful and non-assholery towards each other. But there has to be a golden line somewhere, and I'm arguing that "I'm arbitrarily deciding what I'm offended by, and the entire world should re-arrange itself according to my standards of what's offensive and what's not" is far crossing that line.

This is a strawman.  Who is arguing for that?   The example given is part of a pattern of discrimination, and that's been pointed out now.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the world rearranging itself to one person's arbitrary standards.  

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And you fancy an act of not wanting to fill a questionnaire  as some pervasive method of continuing the racial oppression? 

Yes, because it had been for 100 years and more. It has been and continues to be an issue in things like school for black people or traffic stops or all sorts of other bullshit.

Another example: at Microsoft we have a policy of making sure that people show their badge when they're going through doors and we make sure they scan them. That's a universal policy everywhere in the company. Sounds fine, right? Well, a person asking an employee to scan  their badge when they're going through a door was taken EXTREMELY badly by a new hire because it felt like they were being singled out because they were black and were being seen as not belonging. No intent to single them out - it's the policy, and it's a good one! - but it also reasonably made that person feel completely unwelcome. 

So the action was to make sure that new hire understood why they were doing it and that everyone else understood why that was potentially a problem for that new hire. Problem (mostly) solved!

Why is this such a fucking hard thing?

32 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I get you, and such mindset indeed is simplistic. Different people have different standards, and I'm all for trying to being respectful and non-assholery towards each other. But there has to be a golden line somewhere, and I'm arguing that "I'm arbitrarily deciding what I'm offended by, and the entire world should re-arrange itself according to my standards of what's offensive and what's not" is far crossing that line.

Again, the shared experience of most black people in the US is not 'arbitrarily deciding'. 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

 

I get you, and such mindset indeed is simplistic. Different people have different standards, and I'm all for trying to being respectful and non-assholery towards each other. But there has to be a golden line somewhere, and I'm arguing that "I'm arbitrarily deciding what I'm offended by, and the entire world should re-arrange itself according to my standards of what's offensive and what's not" is far crossing that line.

"Arbitrarily deciding" -- as if black people or other marginalized people can't be trusted to judge things for themselves? So who gets to decide if something was harmful? You, who constantly seems to extend benefit of the doubt to transgressors but won't extend any kind of good faith to victims?

[Martell Spy]

Quote

But, it would also protect them from being blindsided by a charge of moral wrongdoing when all the facts and circumstances surrounding their actions couldn’t possibly have been known to them.

 

What kind of harm is being done to the person who is "being blindsided by a charge of moral wrongdoing?"

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

Why? I knew it. I got that information from diversity training. Why is that so insane to you?

Your case would had been much stronger if you had said you got the information from reading the newspaper, had saw it on a television show, or it was general knowledge in your community. By your own statement, it would appear that you were unaware of the information until it was presented to you at diversity training.

I have some news for you. The average Jane that works as a mechanic at "Bud's Autoshop" probably didn't get that info at diversity training. The average Joe that works as a pizza delivery driver for "Ron's Pizza" probably didn't get it either. Not everyone works at a major corporation that can pay top dollar for diversity training.

In addition, evidently, Robin DiAngelo, whose supposed to be an expert in these matters, didn't know it either.

But, even if I were to grant you that it was common knowledge, that the average person should know, there is still the issue of whether there is ever a fact pattern where a person couldn't have reasonably known their actions were offensive. I think if your answer is never, that is rather untenable.

8 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

That's what you did when you said that intent matters but action doesn't. 

Not quite. The general thrust of my argument is that for moral culpability to attach, there must be some bad state of mind ie the Epistemic Condition must be fulfilled.

 

8 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

For some things, sure. But in your example? Nope. Again, lots of different laws around lots of different behaviors and situations. It's not easy to reduce these things one way or another to simply it always mattering or mattering more.

Most tort laws require some level of intent. There are some exceptions that impose strict liability, such as product liability cases. But, in the context of automobile accidents, I know of no jurisdiction that imposes strict liability. What you were evidently referring to was no fault liability states. But strict liability and no fault are not the same. In strict liability, liability to a third party attaches if an act is committed. In a no fault liability states, no liability is owed to a third party in the case of an accident. Its just you get paid by your own insurance if there is accident, at least for economic damages. In many of those states if you want more than economic damages, then you need to establish fault, ie negligence. The point is that generally no fault or blame attaches in no fault states, except if damages are sought beyond economic damages.

And if you were referring to no fault liability states in your prior post, with regard to pedestrian accidents, you are wrong. There are about 12 no fault liability states. They are seemingly not the majority. In so far, as who pays pedestrians in case of a car accident, I'm not sure how the majority of states handle it. I think in Michigan at least, the driver does not pay the pedestrian. The pedestrian looks to his own insurance policy first, then to his spouses, and then evidently if those aren't available, Michigan keeps a general fund for those situations.

Anyway, most tort and criminal laws do require some level of scienter. There are exceptions of course. But, strict liability laws are viewed somewhat suspiciously. Also, in the criminal law at least, the punishments are rather minor. More importantly, for purposes of discussion here, the offending conduct where strict liability attaches is usually well defined. Generally, you can understand the exact conduct that will get you into trouble. With the "impact matters, not intent" standard I have discussed here it is not always very clear what conduct will land you into hot water ie not wanting to fill out questionnaires.

8 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

Mostly, you enjoy centering it on the people causing harm. That's really clear. 

Sounds like a bad spiel from 1990s "Tough On Crime" conservatism. Why do you care about the rights of the accused? You're not pro-crime are you? Why do you care about the accused being treated fairly? Or how about its early 2000s version. Why do you care if alleged terrorists receive a fair trial? You're. not pro terrorism are you?

If you want to get down in the dirt, I have no problem doing it. Will do it all day, doesn't bother me one iota. We can sit around all day speculating on each others evil motives. I can be a total slimemesiter if that is where you want to go with this.

8 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

 From the perspective of the pedestrian, do they care if they're the person that was hit? Does intent solve their medical bills? Does knowing the driver didn't mean to help them with physical therapy? 

What if the driver was driving the speed limit, was being prudent in his driving, and the pedestrian just runs out in front of his car, at the last minute? Why does the driver get the legal liability and moral blame? We can certainly sympathize with the pedestrian's plight, but that doesn't mean the driver automatically becomes blameworthy.

The problem with labeling people moral bad actors by causation alone, without finding they should have been aware of the possible bad consequences of their actions, is that we are labeling people as doing bad, making a moral judgements about them, and sometimes punishing them, simply because they were unlucky.

[ants]

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Often these discussions around offence and intent centre around language rather than say accidentally shooting someone. 

For some people it seems that words are literally violence, and that you can be harmed by them, the sheer power of a word can damage you, and so in that case there can be no context where certain phrases or words are used that are not harmful. Even if the person saying something didn't mean any offence or any harm, it is irrelevant because simply saying something is like being attacked. 

Words absolutely can be a form of violence.  Ask anyone who has been verbally bullied.  I still have scars from high school. that they're not on the outside doesn't mean they're not real.  

7 hours ago, KalbearAnon said:

I'm not sure how that'd be an issue here or what you're objecting to. In the case of the survey, how hard is it to understand that black people have been tested over and over again when their white colleagues have not in order to demonstrate their competence? This isn't something that is some shocking secret; it's a general pattern of behavior that has been around since after slavery was abolished. 

You might not know it - in which case why not? - but why is it so horrible to actually have to think about these things? 

I've heard a lot about these sorts of things and the excuse is always the same - because I  am not offended by this, you shouldn't be either, and I'll be pissed off if you are. 

Um, in the example the black woman is asking the white person to fill out the survey, and getting offended when they didn't.  The complete opposite of the example you keep bringing up that nobody has argued against.  

So to repeat what's been asked already; why is it reasonable to expect that turning down filling out a survey will make the person asking for the survey to be filled out feel that their intelligence has been slighted? 

 

Also, on the pedestrian case, be careful when applying fault rules about motor insurance.  It is often used as a tool to provide compensation to people hurt as a result of the system, rather than necessarily due to specific fault.  

[ants]

Deleted.

[ants]

The thing is, what complicates some of this is you can be (and should be) sorry, without having any culpability.

If I offend someone and become aware of it, I should feel sorry.  I should feel sorry that my actions caused them to feel hurt.  But whether or not I caused hurt doesn't mean I was necessarily culpable of doing an act that could be reasonably expected to cause hurt.  And if it wasn't reasonable to expect that act to cause hurt, then how can I be blamed for doing that act?  

This is where education and setting expectations come in.  @larrytheimp is completely correct that was is minor on one side, can be major on the other.  Through a number of means; that for the victim there is a material number of these actions against them, that many use those actions with deliberate harm intended, with the historical context.  Should those people have to suffer that? Hell no.  But that also doesn't mean that everyone who committed those hurts were equally to blame.  

We need systems to make sure that people do know what to avoid. We need to be aware of what are issues.  But at the same time people in particular areas (such as politicians, management, media) have a responsibility to educate themselves, and cannot use "I didn't know" as an excuse.  

We also need to be aware that there will be times when people feel hurt, and that feeling so isn't justified.  Because the reality is that there are people out there who enjoy being the martyr, or simply frequently feel slighted, and may have feelings that are not proportional to the action.  And if we cater to every extreme on the distribution, then we can almost stop talking and doing anything.