There is a reason criminal law embodies a “mens rea” requirement for most crimes, and recognizes things like insanity defenses. Would the “impact over intentions” crowd apply the same standard to a mentally ill person with who intentionally goes around shouting the “n-word”? If not their “argument” is logically incoherent, in addition to being morally repulsive.
as we both know the Crit Theory Cult cares nothing about truth, fairness, education, social comity, etc etc...their entire concern is getting to destroy their perceived enemies while feeling righteous and holy about it (well, and also scoring some juicy bureaucratic sinecures).
it is Will to Power for the envious petty tyrant, from top to bottom.
Totally, the academic trappings are just there to fool the rubes, it is simply lust for power in the Orwellian “power is its own end” sense. Nice to see you here CP!
Completely fair point! That said, strict liability is generally limited to situations where the injury is grievous and irreparable, and the injured party has no reasonable ability to protect themselves from the harm. For example, even things like battery do not have a strict liability standard -- if I get pushed into someone else and break their ankle, I am not liable for battery as the elements of battery are intent, contact and harm (see, e.g., https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/battery-basics.html). So if something as potentially dangerous as battery requires intent, I have a hard time seeing how microaggressions and the like can reasonably be held to a strict liability standard.
Very well explained, thank you. The examples provided make me wonder if common sense has completely been lost or if ever possessed. Intent vs impact is definitely another tool in their belt to eliminate free speech.
There is a reason criminal law embodies a “mens rea” requirement for most crimes, and recognizes things like insanity defenses. Would the “impact over intentions” crowd apply the same standard to a mentally ill person with who intentionally goes around shouting the “n-word”? If not their “argument” is logically incoherent, in addition to being morally repulsive.
hey coco!
as we both know the Crit Theory Cult cares nothing about truth, fairness, education, social comity, etc etc...their entire concern is getting to destroy their perceived enemies while feeling righteous and holy about it (well, and also scoring some juicy bureaucratic sinecures).
it is Will to Power for the envious petty tyrant, from top to bottom.
Enjoyed your response on Loury & McWhorter’s affirmative action post too :-).
Totally, the academic trappings are just there to fool the rubes, it is simply lust for power in the Orwellian “power is its own end” sense. Nice to see you here CP!
thanks!
im sure i see u later either in the taibbi comments or one of the other places where we crazy dissidents congregate ;)
have a great day!
Completely fair point! That said, strict liability is generally limited to situations where the injury is grievous and irreparable, and the injured party has no reasonable ability to protect themselves from the harm. For example, even things like battery do not have a strict liability standard -- if I get pushed into someone else and break their ankle, I am not liable for battery as the elements of battery are intent, contact and harm (see, e.g., https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/battery-basics.html). So if something as potentially dangerous as battery requires intent, I have a hard time seeing how microaggressions and the like can reasonably be held to a strict liability standard.
Very well explained, thank you. The examples provided make me wonder if common sense has completely been lost or if ever possessed. Intent vs impact is definitely another tool in their belt to eliminate free speech.