[tomlock]

> To write an article about this concept, he needs some short phrase.

Really? Perhaps the author could have dispensed with the use of the term altogether and just talked about...

> their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them.

...and then referred to that as "their concern". But I think the author deliberately reached for the vague, inflammatory and loaded, but convenient name. I think it is simpler to ascribe this to a lack of desire to have a genuine conversation, than a lack of reader charity. Perhaps if the author was attempting to provoke genuine discussion, that attempt would be clear in their choice of words. I'm not particularly keen to write this article for the author in a clearer manner than the one they managed.

[nkurz]

than a lack of reader charity

I'm sorry if that came across as accusing. I meant to imply that the author would benefit from more charitable language, not that the reader had failed to supply it. I now see that it could also be read the other way.

[tomlock]

Yeah sorry, my interpretation probably comes from philosophy where people are often told to take a "charitable" interpretation of the text they're reading.

I think we agree.