I’m saying that the word carries intent. In part because there is a well known alternative that can be used in almost any situation if intent is not intended.

There are a few exceptional situations, but none have been noted here.

> I’m saying that the word carries intent.

No, you're saying that you know the intent.

Yes. Even more than that. I’m saying virtually everyone knows the intent.

That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do.

But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.

You’re either arguing that we never know intent, ever, so you can’t judge someone. Or that intent can’t be inferred from one word, not sure which one. But both seem like poor positions.

I find both to be correct.

Some words carry intents, even vicious ones, even if you're ignorant of them.

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

Signal, then? Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word.

It's this kind of thinking that led an ex colleague to wonder out loud whether he shouldn't seek some "desensitivity training" for the entire company (who had just reacted very negatively to a message he'd sent out) rather than communication training for him!

> Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word.

If my intent is irrelevant, why bring it up?

And this is exactly what we're talking about: Is using the wrong word bad in itself, or does there need to be some intent? Can we determine intent objectively? Fairly? Does intent matter? What is a wrong word? Who decides? What consequences do taboo words have for society?

You can't just claim "Your intent is irrelevant ... when you use the wrong word." when that's the entire question.

Your ex colleague thinks people should grow thicker skin. You think we should police language. I don't see that your idea is very developed and it certainly doesn't work very well right now.