“Intent.” Your essay on this topic Michael ignores, or overlooks, a compelling reality inherent in the use of this word: “intent” is the privilege of those with power over. Divorced from this reality is the fact that it also is a completely meaningless word. “Intent” is entirely subjective, with meaning only to the person using the word (in this instance with respect to offensive language) to excuse, or to explain, or to rationalize an action that is belittling to the listener. For the listener to wander into this meaningless thicket is to deepen the original abuse. How to respond? What to do? How to evaluate sincerity? Am I being played? And so forth. Strike “intent” from your analysis with respect to offensive language. Words have meaning.
A sad example of "wokeism" and the Cancel Culture. People have choices as to how they can perceive and react to whatever is said, and how it is said. There should not be any one interpretation of any word, depending on who said it!!!! In a court of law, intent must be proven, but apparently not if you are a journalist.
I usually enjoy reading your columns, and I was surprised to read yesterday's column about Donald McNeil and have you seem so completely tone deaf. You focused only on the use of that one word on that one occasion and completely discounted the input of 150 employees who said he had shown bias against colleagues of color over a "period of years." Even if you ignore that (but I don't see how you can), at the very minimum his conversation with the high school kids showed poor judgement. Getting into a dialogue with teenagers about the use of a highly charged word was at best insensitive and at worst, was deliberately provocative.
“Intent.” Your essay on this topic Michael ignores, or overlooks, a compelling reality inherent in the use of this word: “intent” is the privilege of those with power over. Divorced from this reality is the fact that it also is a completely meaningless word. “Intent” is entirely subjective, with meaning only to the person using the word (in this instance with respect to offensive language) to excuse, or to explain, or to rationalize an action that is belittling to the listener. For the listener to wander into this meaningless thicket is to deepen the original abuse. How to respond? What to do? How to evaluate sincerity? Am I being played? And so forth. Strike “intent” from your analysis with respect to offensive language. Words have meaning.
Than k you. Hope the times editor sees your heartening piece.
A sad example of "wokeism" and the Cancel Culture. People have choices as to how they can perceive and react to whatever is said, and how it is said. There should not be any one interpretation of any word, depending on who said it!!!! In a court of law, intent must be proven, but apparently not if you are a journalist.
I usually enjoy reading your columns, and I was surprised to read yesterday's column about Donald McNeil and have you seem so completely tone deaf. You focused only on the use of that one word on that one occasion and completely discounted the input of 150 employees who said he had shown bias against colleagues of color over a "period of years." Even if you ignore that (but I don't see how you can), at the very minimum his conversation with the high school kids showed poor judgement. Getting into a dialogue with teenagers about the use of a highly charged word was at best insensitive and at worst, was deliberately provocative.