> I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's

> I think he's conflating the way that it's used in popular discourse (which is often outcome dependent), with what I think is a fairly clear definition. He's not conflating, he's just taking a different stance than you to linguistic prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. > He's then calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining a person's intent. I actually think that's counter-productive and leaves you vulnerable to (for want of a better word) manipulation. No, he's not. He never mentions intent in the post. He is calling for a measure that can be used objectively without ascertaining the actions outcome.