> I want to say that based on your response, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's good. Because it's very easy, especially on the internet, of going through the cycle of:

1. This person disagrees with me. They must simply not be informed. Let me explain.
2. Oh, they still disagree. They must just be trolling, then, becasue what rational person would disagree with me when the facts are out.
3. Oh, they actually do disagree? They must be evil.

And it's a fallacy that's easy to slip into, and part of the reason there's so much hate out there.

>> "microrape"

> Unless we are talking about moths, please provide a serious academic or published document that actually proposes this as a generally accepted term.

It's not. The closest thing is immature girls saying they were "almost raped" when actually what they got is an unwanted look, or declined an advance.

My point, though, was to give an example of this clearly incorrect term, to compare it with what I'm saying is the completely incorrect term of "micro aggression".

It can be misogynistic, racist, insensitive, lacking in empathy, and many other things. But "aggressive" seems to me like it's a term chosen for its political weight, not for its accuracy.

> Yeah, intent doesn't matter.

But it clearly does. Obviously it does. The whole legal topic of Mens Rea is dedicated to this.

Murder is morally and legally distinct from manslaughter.

But manslaughter is still a crime. And it's a crime because the perpetrator is morally culpable.

But they're not eqivalent crimes.

Hitting someone with your car on accident is CLEARLY very different from doing it with intent.

"Intent doesn't matter" is another phrase that has a very specific meaning in one setting ("by that I mean that you can't give a sexual comment at work just because it's a compliment"), but is used in its literal form to bully people who admit to making mistakes and improving. It's used to call people unfixably evil, instead of allowing them to improve their behaviour when they didn't realize it was hurtful.

Do you remember this woman: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964489/I-really-ob...

She mocked yelling at a cemetary, where people saw it as hugely disrespectful. And if that had been her intent then it would have been bad.

But turns out she had a collection of photos of herself violating signs. E.g. wearing no shirt and no shoes in front of a sign with "no shirt, no shoes, no service", cigarette and holding a bottle in front of "no smoking, no drinking", walking past a "STOP" sign. (I don't remember exactly the other examples)

Does that context not matter at all to you, for moral culpability?

"Intent doesn't matter" is in a way like "Defund/abolish the police". It's a big slogan, but most people say "oh we don't actually mean that", but there definitely are ones that do. So you should say what you mean, instead, because it's hurting more than it's helping.

"Intent doesn't excuse"

> If you don't want to change your beliefs, that's fine. Just act like a decent human being, and treat others with respect while you are operating in a professional context.

I think the biggest violators of that recommendation is D&I activists.

I'm perfectly able to act as a decent human being without a mob of people calling me an inherently evil white male, born with original sin I cannot wash away no matter how I act, thank you very much.

> As for the rest of your claims, it is obvious to me that you are more concerned with your perceived harms to your own freedoms than you are with considering the perspectives of others

I'm sorry we've had such a huge misunderstanding. That is not an accurate description of my opinion.

But take a specific example: for about a year the "lab leak theory" was censured from social media, and called "racist". The "harm to others" here was actually shutting down a reasonable discussion by calling it "racist".

I still have no idea why it's a racist theory. Like, how does it even help to be a racist, to have this view? (isn't it more racist to critizise wetmarkets?)

Of course nowadays it's actually a mainstream theory, and let's all just forget that the D&I mob mobilized against people who said that it's at least possible that the lab that experimented with the viruses could have possibly been involved.

If we're talking aggression, then shutting down anyone you disagree with, on any topic, by calling them racist with no logical connection: that's (macro)aggressive and not considering the perspective of others.

Nobody wants to be called a racist. Very few want to be racist. It's a big hammer, that leaves a wound that doesn't go away. You'd better be sure.

Another one of those is "pedo". You don't call someone a pedo publicly unless you literally mean that, and you're sure. There's no taking that back, for the accused.