81% agreed that, “Words can be a form of violence”

Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 2 weeks ago to Education
63 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In a free speech survey of 800 full time undergrads, responses were fairly rational, until the section titled, “Hate speech”

http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Great then lock the liberals all up for violence against the president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Riftsrunner 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      Unfortunately, it is only violent from people who don't agree with them. Their speech is protected by the Constitution, while their opponents' speech is Hate Speech and must be prosecuted. So they can attack the right leaning President, but you're a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe for questioning a left leaning President.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      Absolutely, but don't hold your breath. To them, it's not hate speech against the president... just rational, intelligent thinking. Remember during the campaign when a Snowflake saw, "Trump" written in chalk on the sidewalk. She was in tears and had to go to her safe place. If you're a Liberal, then anything a Conservative says can be turned into hate speech.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Snezzy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
        You don't need to SAY it, but only to think it. Your silence or astonishment at a suggestion that the First and Second Amendments are outdated is ample evidence of your hatefulness.

        Oh, and don't say the words thoughtcrime or George Orwell, either.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
      If they continue to have their way, the jails will be full of “criminals” who have spoken offensive words. “Offensive” redefined as, actions and/or words leftist don’t like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
    “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” was a typical response taught to young children against personally offensive speech. Nowadays kids are purposely being taught that words can be violent, and violence must be stopped! Therefore the words must be stopped. Therefore the people speaking those words must be stopped. Therefore...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      A few years ago on the leftist site Pharyngula, the subject of cyberbullying came up. I threw in a comment alluding to "Sticks and stones. . .", and the snowflakes were just horrified.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Hate speech - a term that should be banned. Serious biased vitriol that results in harm can, and should, be prosecuted as inciting to riot. If no harm results from even the most vile spoken or written words, then we should simply note them, and keep an eye on the originator to see if they act in concert with their words.

    Control of a people is a result of promoting insecurity and lack of self esteem. If you can convince them that they are so fragile that they need safe spaces to protect them from hearing things that might upset them, the leash has been set. Rational thought is set aside, as the fragile await the next pronouncement from their "rescuers," who are really their captors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    And, of course, if words are a form of violence then it is acceptable to use physical violence in response.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      I believe that, if a person comes toward you (physical action) and says, "I am going to kill you!" (words) that what he has said is considered to add weight to his intentions in judging whether you were justified in kicking his kneecaps into concave formations.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 7 months, 2 weeks ago
        And let's say the person who is coming at you is waving a knife and is yelling "Allahu Akbar". That would justify taking out your .357 and putting him down for good.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
          I’ve been told time and time again that I should not judge people. Looking at my Apple Watch and tapping Microsoft translate, it seems the gentleman is saying, “Allah is the gr...
          Ummmph!
          Ahhhhhhhhh...
          (Plunk!)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
        I would agree with that. But if they just hand you a note, with the exact same words, then backed away, would you also be justified to do that?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlc 7 months, 2 weeks ago
          If you were a teller in a bank, you would!

          Also, if someone came up behind a person they knew was really afraid of snakes and pointed at a pile of debris and yelled, "Watch out! Rattlesnake!" and that person jumped away from the 'snake' and into the path of a car, then the person who yelled, "Snake." is responsible.

          I think we have to keep from letting our frustration at the snowflake 'you used the wrong pronoun to me and I am irreparably hurt' subset of society polarize us to an irrational degree. There are cases where 'words hurt'...it is just not what a lot of people are referring to when they use this phrase.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
            Behind words are the people that expressed them. I agree that certain words can hurt, ones feelings. They can add to the cause of undesirable actions. But by themselves they only add weight to some action.
            This does not mean that “yelling” (an action) “Fire!” in a crowded theater is right. No. It is very very wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 months, 2 weeks ago
              Oh, I forgot...the UCMJ prohibits "provoking speech and gestures" from anyone subject the the Code (any member in the Service) to anyone else subject to the Code (any other member of the Service). This means that the highest Admiral cannot address the lowest, most incompetent Recruit as "motherf****r" without subjecting himself to be liable to legal action. And quite properly, as people do not enter the military service to be unconscionably abused. However, nitpicking about every little, inadvertent pronoun resulting from a legitimate free-speech expression of opinion would be ridiculous.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by chad 7 months, 2 weeks ago
            The wife of my friend while working at a bank received a phone call letting her know that the robber intended to be there at three o'clock could she have some money ready? She brushed it off as a prank but her boss called the FBI and the robber showed up at three where he was immediately taken into custody. Considering the robber had been polite, courteous to make an appointment and prompt was it fair for the FBI to take him down? Shouldn't they have politely waited outside?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      " if words are a form of violence then it is acceptable to use physical violence in response."
      This is where the phrase "fighting words" comes from, but fortunately it sounds like a joke to modern ear.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Progressives and their little liberal retarded siblings have confounded the meaning of normal everyday words so much that they totally or conveniently forgot that Hate requires "Physical" animosity...so speech, unless accompanied by a swift bop upside the head...is not hate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Here in Florida, reaction is based on reasonable belief, if a vehicle goes by and someone yells out the window "Im gonna kill you" and you then fire on the vehicle, your dumbass is rightfully going to jail. If, (this recently happened to me) when told he was trespassing, a man comes out of a wooded property you are in charge of, at a fast pace towards you, reaches behind his waistband and says " I`ve got one" , you are well within your rights to put him down. This particular mensa applicant came to a fast halt and showed his empty hands when I drew on him, then ran off. When the law arrived, I was informed had I shot him, I would not be arrested. The responding LEO also informed me this chump had been released from local lock up a week prior, he was in for threatening to kill school kids on the sidewalk while in possession of a knife. The key words are "reasonable belief" The speech is one part of the equation, actions are the other.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    That was a very interesting survey, thank you for posting a link to it.

    It is inescapably true that words can be a form of violence: Shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater is the most often quoted example, but I will provide a different one.

    I could walk up to you and say, "I just wanted to say that I am very sorry. What? You don't know? I work in your doctor's office and I saw from your chart that you have just been diagnosed with cancer. Oh. Well...your doctor will probably call you today..."

    That is definitely using 'words as violence'. These words do not literally break bones, but they could ruin your relationship, your finances, or your job. Even when you find out that "I" was lying, there would be real damage done.

    That being said, most things that are labeled 'violent words' do not fall in that category. We need a better definition of word violence.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
      I just don’t see your example as “violent.”
      Those words may be bad, untrue, vindictive, etc.
      Now words grouped together such as,
      “Go out and kill all the capitalist pigs you can find!” (Example only)
      Do obviously express that people do violent actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    I do equate verbal threats of violence as violence. Just my take on it. Threaten my kids and I'll break your jaw before you finish the sentence. Other than threatening what really matters to a man, however, words aren't violence.

    One man's take...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have been watching the evolution of "attitudes" for years now. The attitude of being catered to, of not being disagreed with or judged, of expecting others to know the tiniest nuance of what might offend, and of demanding special treatment without having to reciprocate, has spread like a virus. Some are more equal than others, by dint of belonging to some group that needs to assert itself because it sees itself as underprivileged..

    More and more groups keep splintering into subgroups. How long is the row of initials just for the gender crowd? How many races, ethnicities, hybrids need to be tracked? How many minority characteristics need to be designated for special treatment? How many medical conditions, ages, educational levels, disabilities, "spectrums" have to get special consideration?

    It’s something of a game to watch these splinter groups form alliances, coalitions, collusions to increase their power (in unity there is strength, e pluribus unum), forming strange bedfellows against a common enemy du jour and realigning with other groups when the weather changes, like a bad divorce.

    Then there is the artificial leveling of "playing fields" to chisel down the more fortunate (or able) to the lowest common denominator. And woe if some attain greater success or wealth. If only 1% of the population is rich, they constitute a very small minority yet earn the maximum condemnation. Envy runs this agenda.

    How can we drive home the principle that the smallest minority is the individual? How large a group of individualists will it take to make that point stick?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
      Ironically, I’m finding that may of these underpridged groups know that their group, their ideas and their ways are SUPERIOR.
      AND RESPECT IS DEMANDED, OR ELSE!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    A word is missing.
    It is Physical. Physical Violence is what is feared. Remember "sticks and stones.....?" Of course, as an adult, words can hurt you. Lies can damage your reputation. At first the lies were applied to those who had the courage to put their opinions in a newspaper.. Then came radio and TV. And today, we have the ultimate thing called "social media." But, it doesn't take courage to opine on that -- only foolishness. It is self censoring and and is only meaningful when prominent persons are talked to or about, by other prominent persons Otherwise it is a general public spleen vent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Its time to just ignore the ranting of the liberals. Its all garbage that they put out in order to disarm people who think, and further the liberal agenda
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 7 months, 2 weeks ago
      Unfortunately, they are gaining ground. The subject survey shows all groups except GOP favoring the left, if only by a small margin, and gaining over previous polls. I'm waiting to see when vilifying the 1% and the greedy billionaires will be recognized as hate speech.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 months, 2 weeks ago
        I think we have gotten past the tipping point in this country. The collectivists are getting in the majority. Obama went a little too far, and created a bit of a backlash against collectivism and blacks actually.

        The result was Trump and the current populist movement. But, the collectivists are working in the background to never let that happen again. We have 3 years to enjoy some slowdown in the march to socialism, but I am thinking that in 2020 (and maybe even in 2018) we will see renewed march to socialism in earnest.

        All I can say is that I dont intend to be so stupid in the future as to produce wealth, only to have it to go the leftists. Better to cut back on expenses and reduce the need to actually make money. Reduced expenses means lower sales tax payments, and reducing the need for income means lower income taxes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
          So many political philosophies end up at consume less and produce less than we're able and desire for some abstract goal. I discovered Ayn Rand six years ago, and I took away almost exactly the opposite of these comments.

          Collectivists getting the majority - It seems like during my lifetime I've seen collectivism retreat. I see it as a trend that has been going for centuries. The rejection of collectivism is fueled by industrial and IT tools that make value creation less dependent on scarce resources. It's fueled by reason and Enlightenment values.

          "Obama went a little too far" - He was part of a long-term trend of the presidency getting too much power. He was a good president, but not a saint or devil that made structural changes. The problem of executive power continues after he's gone.

          "The result was Trump and the current populist movement" - I see President Trump being elected president as the result of weak opponents, a fluke of electoral math, and technology that rewards lurid clickbait and provides a forum for deplorables who would never have had their letters to the editor published. It remains to be seen if he will be a fluke or the first in a line of clownish presidents.

          "We have 3 years to enjoy some slowdown in the march to socialism" - Despite the long-term trend away from collectivism, I'm concerned there will be a socialist backlash in my lifetime. It is no more or less likely during the next three years because President Trump is no more or less socialist than President Obama.

          The positive of this is I do not believe there will be any renewed march toward socialism based on who's president. It's just a problem I expect to crop up all the time because unfortunately socialism is superficially appealing and is part of the world's religions.

          I find it fascinating how people can look at the same world and see such different places. I find it sad that so often people who see the world differently from me (e.g. Naomi Klein, Wendell Berry) arrive, via completely different roads, at the conclusion that people need to produce and consume less.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 7 months, 2 weeks ago
            I have been wondering for a long time what the appeal of socialism really is. When implemented, it historically has failed miserably, yet it has popular support.

            Is socialism hard wired into a human's psyche somehow ? Maybe its the desire for power and control that makes it so appealing- particularly for the ones IN power.

            I find it useless to discuss philosophy with leftists. No matter what the discussion produces, they simply ignore everything except their posiion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  7 months, 2 weeks ago
    More questions...
    Can a number be a form of violence?
    Can food be a form of violence?
    Can an idea be a form of violence?
    Can a book be a form of violence?
    Can a statute be a form of violence?
    Can a picture be a form of violence?
    Camp a car be a form of violence?
    Can a gun be a form of violence?

    If you answered yes on all of the above,
    Is there anything they can never be a form of violence?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me?" That's what my parents told me when I got bullied on the grade-school playground back around 1968 or so. And, I never shot anyone because of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Well, if the words are information to the Nazis where Jews are hiding; or, if they are a threat, like,
    "I'm going to bash your skull in and beat the s*** out of you," that can be a form of violence entitling the
    recipient to physical retaliation. And for libel and slander (if proved), then, yes. Short of something in those categories, forget it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Even if you threaten to kill someone because they were impolite to you and both know that a homicide will not result there is a certain implied threat of some kind of retaliation. There are many levels of violence, it is the responsibility of all involved to make those determinations, in the case of uncomfortable conversation it is always possible to withdraw.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
    Words as a form of violence is not a new idea.

    There's the concept of "fighting words", words so mean spirited that the law views responding to them with violence as self-defense. The phrase "fighting words" sounds like a joke now in most places.

    Seeing violent crimes as worse if they're motivated by "terrorism" or "hate", however, is increasing. The idea is "terrorism" and "hate crimes" are intended to intimidate entire groups, not just hurt the direct targets of violence. I do not agree with this, but the concept itself is not anti free speech.

    I also wonder if some respondents were thinking of direct, credible threats to specific individuals. I don't know if I call such words "violence", but they're definitely not protected speech.

    Contrary to other commenters here, I am optimistic. "That's blasphemy! and "those are fighting words!" sound like jokes, except for in areas controlled by theocracy. 200 years ago, OTOH educated people in the US saw calling someone a paltroon in a newspaper as a form of violence that would make the target look weak unless he responded with a duel.

    The notion that some evil group of people are successfully eroding respect for free speech seems completely wrong to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo