I really worry a lot about how the “impact over intent” argument is used to argue against clearing up misunderstandings amicably.

Yes, there are sensitive issues, and yes you can reasonably make attempts to avoid hurting people on them. But...

Here are 2 reasons this bothers me:

1. I don’t just want to avoid hurting people. I also want to treat people equally.

DiAngelo would attribute this to the white supremacist ideology of objectivity, but I don’t care. It’s one of my principles *because* I dont want to be racist.

This doesn’t just mean trying to be kind and not provoke people. It also means not walking on eggshells around people. I dont want to have different standards for talking to different kinds if people.

2. For me, overcoming fear and anxiety doesnt just involve being clear to people about my boundaries ans sensitivities. It also means challenging my paranoia, and realizing that people arent out to get me.

Understanding motives is empowering.

It would do a profound disservice to already marginalized people to tell them they shouldn’t do this. It would impoverish them by removing a tool in their toolbox for dealing with social conflict.

But to be fair, yes people are also rude and racist and sexist and deserve pushback. I’m not trying to say it’s a one way street.

I’ve told jokes I’ve regretted. I’ve had attitudes I’ve changed. /end