Thread by @NGrossman81

As someone whose main contribution to discussions of PC, cancel culture, etc. is criticizing catastrophizing, I’d like to say that a large group of NYT staffers declaring, in writing, that intent is irrelevant when evaluating speech is something worthy of philosophical pushback.

Intent isn’t the only relevant factor when evaluating speech. But it’s a factor.
Saying something isn’t the same as recounting what someone else said, esp not if the intent of recounting it is criticism.
Doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the recounting, just that it’s not the same

Consider “where are you from?” Identified as a microaggression in the US when the implication is “not America, so where really?”
But it’s also small talk, intending to get an answer like “Cleveland,” setting up chitchat about the Cavs or the rock and roll hall of fame or whatever

Another example: a liar and a fact-checker calling out the liar will use some of the same words. But their intent in using those words is clearly different, and any moral evaluation of the two will account for that difference.
How could it not? Intent is relevant. Of course it is

I’m not commenting on specifics of any NYT personnel decision. I don’t know all the details, and assume there’s some behind-the-scenes context.
But a general principle that the intent behind expression is “irrelevant” is deeply flawed and should not become a universal standard.

https://twitter.com/ngrossman81/status/1358040391174545409