> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish.
How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true.
You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.
How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true.
You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.
There are a few exceptional situations, but none have been noted here.
No, you're saying that you know the intent.
But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.
It's this kind of thinking that led an ex colleague to wonder out loud whether he shouldn't seek some "desensitivity training" for the entire company (who had just reacted very negatively to a message he'd sent out) rather than communication training for him!
If my intent is irrelevant, why bring it up?
And this is exactly what we're talking about: Is using the wrong word bad in itself, or does there need to be some intent? Can we determine intent objectively? Fairly? Does intent matter? What is a wrong word? Who decides? What consequences do taboo words have for society?
You can't just claim "Your intent is irrelevant ... when you use the wrong word." when that's the entire question.
Your ex colleague thinks people should grow thicker skin. You think we should police language. I don't see that your idea is very developed and it certainly doesn't work very well right now.