81% agreed that, “Words can be a form of violence”
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...
http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default...
Oh, and don't say the words thoughtcrime or George Orwell, either.
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.
Jan
Ummmph!
Ahhhhhhhhh...
(Plunk!)
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
This does not mean that “yelling” (an action) “Fire!” in a crowded theater is right. No. It is very very wrong.
Jan, smiling
This is where the phrase "fighting words" comes from, but fortunately it sounds like a joke to modern ear.
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
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.
Ignorance is strength
Words are knives
Jan
One man's take...
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?
AND RESPECT IS DEMANDED, OR ELSE!
https://youtu.be/QU-Px0VjQ2w
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V4Yn...
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.