zlacker

> Your comment only works if it’s possible to construct your words so precisely that there is no way to misinterpret them.

Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.

The same is true for considering how different audiences will interpret your words. You have a responsibility do take those interpretations into consideration but there is a practical limit to how far it can be taken.

However, I believe the listener shares some of the responsibility to consider other (possibly more generous) interpretations beyond their initial reaction.

If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.

>>shkkmo+(OP)
>We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.

Doesn't it? I might sneeze and inadvertantly cause a typhoon in Malaysia through the butterfly effect but I can't possibly know or predict that, so how can I take responsibility for it? What does "responsibility" even mean if it's practically outside of your control?

I would argue that the limits of our responsibility are defined by practical limitations. We can't take responsibility for accidental negatives, any more than we can take credit for accidental positives. If you tried to account for your entire impact on the universe, regardless of the practicality, you'd be paralysed with indecision.

>>shkkmo+(OP)
>Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects

If you can lose your job because someone misinterpreted what you said (or chose to misinterpret something clear), then that "practical limit" can get quite high...

>If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.

Well, if every person loved each other, then there would be no crime either!

>>shkkmo+(OP)
Let me play devils advocate here: I got offended reading your post. And (according to what you said) you are clearly responsible. Now how are you going to compensate me for my harm?

>>determ+tn3
What did you find offensive? Your beat bet is to explain how you understood what I said and how it was offensive to you. That will give me the best bet of understanding how you and people like you interpret the things I say.

>>dTal+15
You seem to have missed my point and tried to explain the subtext of my argument to me.

The point is that the line for what you are and are not responsible for is a grey and fuzzy one that depends on the context the the decision, the magnitude of the decision, and your own capabilities as an agent.

My point is that the limitations of trying to understand how your words may be interpreted are similarly based in practical considerations.