Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> we have come to the point where what you actually say, you intentions, are completely irrelevant, it's all about how your message is perceived

The way this is typically framed is "impact matters more than intent". Like if you weren't watching where you were walking and accidentally stepped on someone's foot. You didn't _intend_ to harm them, but the overall _impact_ was that you did harm them.

As you rightly point out though, the elephant in the room is that impact in this context is not falsifiable. Unlike stepping on someone's foot where you could use instruments to measure how many capillaries were broken or if the bone is cracked, with words and feelings you can't actually empirically prove harm was done which is why I think enacting laws and policies that directly correlate with impact is a recipe for disaster...

IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level. "Hey, I find swear words offensive, can you stop?" "Oh sure, sorry about that, I won't swear around you". Bam, problem solved.

A society that transitions to: "Hey, I find swear words offensive, I'm going to report you to the psychological harm police" is one on the fast track to dystopia.

>IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level.

IMO the only reasonable way to deal with impact is to limit the law to purely physical impact. It should never be the business of any government to attempt to regulate, mandate, restrict or punish behavior based on the thought processes or feelings of anyone.

Not sure exactly how to quantify "physical impact", but in many US states, the crime of misdemeanor battery is defined as any "unwanted" contact, such that cases without any apparent physical harm become crimes based on thought processes and feelings of the aggrieved party.

as happens so often, basketball provides a microcosm. fouls are called (and varying penalties assessed) for illegal moves that lead to an unfair advantage. implicit in that is that intent matters. many times, a foul isn’t assessed for an illegal maneuver because the intent to gain advantage wasn’t there (contact was happenstance) or no advantage was gained. however, some fouls are so dangerous (e.g., undercutting a shooter), that intent does not matter, and a foul is called even when done completely unintentionally.

as always, we have to consider the nuance and avoid overly broad statements/policies.

Uhm... Intent had nothing to do with a foul. The idea is the move is illegal because it can give you an advantage. It doesn't matter if you intend to or not. A lot of the fouls in basketball are not intentional. A common foul is attempting to block a shot and hitting the shooter's arm. No harm was intended, but a foul was called. About the only time intent matters in basketball is got a three point attempt.

that's completely missing the discretion refs have in calling fouls. if they didn't employ discretion, you'd have a foul every 5 seconds, rendering the game unwatchable/unplayable (e.g., the rule changes that the nba made this season). intent and (unfair) advantage are crucial to that discretion. again, nuance.

Hey, I find your comments offensive. Can you stop?

Hello I am Internet Officer Badge #762783.

Do you feel that user "clairity" harmed you? If so I will begin the paperwork for detainment and evaluation for reeducation by the Internet Feelings Agency (IFA).

Sounds like you have qualified immunity, and I am required to report, your status of legal superiority offends my sensibilities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com