3 ms·

> Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent You haven't been paying attention - the (preposterous) idea that "intent doesn't matter, only impact"

> Literally nobody thinks impact & intent are equivalent You haven't been paying attention - the (preposterous) idea that "intent doesn't matter, only impact" is a key premise of modern social justice activism and is taught to undergraduates as unquestionable fact.

wccrawford 5y ago
What amazes me is that the CoC doesn't actually say that. It just says they're different. It relies on the reader to have already known that "intent doesn't matter, only impact" and anyone could actually interpret it as the opposite, especially if their culture already thinks that intent is the more important thing.
- jeltz 5y ago
  Yeah, the legal tradition and mostly the morals of my country is based on intent is the only thing which matters. So a reasonable assumption for me would be that is a reminder that impact does not matter. I doubt that is what they mean but it is very far from clear, especially in an international context. Many of these CoCs are virtually impossible to understand unless you have at least a cursory understanding with contemporary American politics. Very inclusive ...
hamilyon2 5y ago
Is naiive consequentialism to the spirit of "oucome justifies means" really that popular? I ask because the law, legal system and even democratic values as we know them are built on very different principles. We definitely punish theft, burglary and fraud even if outcome giving to poor is seen as preferrable. We dont punish legal tax shenanigans and some shady philanthropy, even if outcome is poor. And when democratic majority is in favor of some stupid and harmful policy, we campaign against it, but still obey democratic majority.
banannaise 5y ago
That's a highly disingenuous framing. A better framing would be "intent is not a sufficient excuse for impact". Intent is not meaningless, but unintentional harms need to be remedied by understanding the harm and working to change the behavior. If someone commits an unintentional harm repeatedly, it ceases to become unintentional, because the refusal to learn is deliberate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wccrawford 5y ago

What amazes me is that the CoC doesn't actually say that. It just says they're different. It relies on the reader to have already known that "intent doesn't matter, only impact" and anyone could actually interpret it as the opposite, especially if their culture already thinks that intent is the more important thing.

jeltz 5y ago
Yeah, the legal tradition and mostly the morals of my country is based on intent is the only thing which matters. So a reasonable assumption for me would be that is a reminder that impact does not matter. I doubt that is what they mean but it is very far from clear, especially in an international context. Many of these CoCs are virtually impossible to understand unless you have at least a cursory understanding with contemporary American politics. Very inclusive ...

hamilyon2 5y ago

Is naiive consequentialism to the spirit of "oucome justifies means" really that popular? I ask because the law, legal system and even democratic values as we know them are built on very different principles. We definitely punish theft, burglary and fraud even if outcome giving to poor is seen as preferrable. We dont punish legal tax shenanigans and some shady philanthropy, even if outcome is poor. And when democratic majority is in favor of some stupid and harmful policy, we campaign against it, but still obey democratic majority.

banannaise 5y ago

That's a highly disingenuous framing. A better framing would be "intent is not a sufficient excuse for impact". Intent is not meaningless, but unintentional harms need to be remedied by understanding the harm and working to change the behavior. If someone commits an unintentional harm repeatedly, it ceases to become unintentional, because the refusal to learn is deliberate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]