4 ms·

Intent is irrelevant ... only the impact. One must always be ready to reckon with the impact of their actions and speech, regardless of what their intent was.

throw0101a 7y ago
> Intent is irrelevant ... only the impact. Generally both are judged. You can have the intent to commit murder, but if you bungle it and the person is still living (i.e., no impact), then you're still in trouble.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And conversely, this is why terms like "homicide" and "manslaughter" exist, because judgements in cases of one person killing another depend on specific circumstances and intent.
  - CodeCube 7y ago
    It feels like you two are trying to disagree with me, but are only bolstering my argument further. In the context of murder, regardless of what the murderer's intent was, the victim is still dead ... the impact remains unchanged, and the murderer must still reckon with their actions (even if their intent is taken into account in sentencing)
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Fair, we went off a tangent. So going back to the point: in this case, the consequences are grossly unproportional to the misdeed that happened.
prepend 7y ago
If the impact is a bunch of people misinterpreting and feeling upset, that’s not much impact. If impact caused harm then that’s another story. There are laws for libel, slander, harassment, threat. Let’s use those laws and prosecute people.
- CodeCube 7y ago
  Who says harm hasn't been caused? I've never been to MIT, but there's plenty of stories floating around from alumni who suggest he may have contributed to a hostile environment that has likely made women feel unwelcome (for one example of harm caused).
  - prepend 7y ago
    It’s important to measure harm done and react when it is significant (or hopefully before it reaches that threshold). Fortunately there are legal thresholds for workplace harassment that are designed to protect people. They aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but it’s one way to differentiate between harm and perceived harm. No workplace should be a hostile environment and it’s messed up if women feel unwelcome. The challenge is in differentiating from harmful behaviors and behaviors that are interpreted as harmful. I have no idea how to do that and one of the reasons why I think HR is a really hard job. But there’s lots of scenarios where someone may feel unwelcome that doesn’t result from any ill will or poor action on the part of another. For example, I had an employee who was really hurt because a staff member didn’t prebrief her on meetings she was invited to. She was really upset and it hurt her. She though her coworker was withholding information from her and wanted her to do poorly at work. Eventually I had to confront the other and the other was surprised and had no idea. The other wasn’t withholding info but my staffer was requesting to attend as an optional on the meeting at the last minute and the other agreed but didn’t spend any time describing the meeting. The other assumed my staffer would read the agenda and material and review the participants. The resolution was my staffer understanding no ill will. There’s many situations where I get upset about something that is me interpreting things and not a flaw in others that should be changed. Hostile work environments need to have the actual problems addressed and the individual perceived problems resolved efficiently, I think.

throw0101a 7y ago

> Intent is irrelevant ... only the impact. Generally both are judged. You can have the intent to commit murder, but if you bungle it and the person is still living (i.e., no impact), then you're still in trouble.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
And conversely, this is why terms like "homicide" and "manslaughter" exist, because judgements in cases of one person killing another depend on specific circumstances and intent.
- CodeCube 7y ago
  It feels like you two are trying to disagree with me, but are only bolstering my argument further. In the context of murder, regardless of what the murderer's intent was, the victim is still dead ... the impact remains unchanged, and the murderer must still reckon with their actions (even if their intent is taken into account in sentencing)
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Fair, we went off a tangent. So going back to the point: in this case, the consequences are grossly unproportional to the misdeed that happened.

prepend 7y ago

If the impact is a bunch of people misinterpreting and feeling upset, that’s not much impact. If impact caused harm then that’s another story. There are laws for libel, slander, harassment, threat. Let’s use those laws and prosecute people.

CodeCube 7y ago
Who says harm hasn't been caused? I've never been to MIT, but there's plenty of stories floating around from alumni who suggest he may have contributed to a hostile environment that has likely made women feel unwelcome (for one example of harm caused).
- prepend 7y ago
  It’s important to measure harm done and react when it is significant (or hopefully before it reaches that threshold). Fortunately there are legal thresholds for workplace harassment that are designed to protect people. They aren’t perfect by a long stretch, but it’s one way to differentiate between harm and perceived harm. No workplace should be a hostile environment and it’s messed up if women feel unwelcome. The challenge is in differentiating from harmful behaviors and behaviors that are interpreted as harmful. I have no idea how to do that and one of the reasons why I think HR is a really hard job. But there’s lots of scenarios where someone may feel unwelcome that doesn’t result from any ill will or poor action on the part of another. For example, I had an employee who was really hurt because a staff member didn’t prebrief her on meetings she was invited to. She was really upset and it hurt her. She though her coworker was withholding information from her and wanted her to do poorly at work. Eventually I had to confront the other and the other was surprised and had no idea. The other wasn’t withholding info but my staffer was requesting to attend as an optional on the meeting at the last minute and the other agreed but didn’t spend any time describing the meeting. The other assumed my staffer would read the agenda and material and review the participants. The resolution was my staffer understanding no ill will. There’s many situations where I get upset about something that is me interpreting things and not a flaw in others that should be changed. Hostile work environments need to have the actual problems addressed and the individual perceived problems resolved efficiently, I think.