President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[tooblue]

Guns kill people. Diseases also kill people. Therefore diseases are guns.

Same logic.

Classic Reductio ad absurdum ... lol. And gosh, those people with PTSD should just get over it right!

[tooblue]

LOL! Hard agree. Do we extend "stand your ground laws" to "verbal violence?" If someone calls me a "fascist" or a "communist" can I shoot to kill?

Again, Reductio ad absurdum ... lol

[Jeff Lebowski]

As someone who has spent the last decade working with countless people who struggled with trauma, tooblue isn't wrong.

It's often the words that linger and haunt abuse victims more than anything else.

With sexual assault; the response, or lack of one can also be retraumatizing in way that overrides the original attack in intentions trauma.

A child tells their mom or dad they were molested or raped, and when they are told it is their fault or are ignored, that humiliation, invalidation and betrayal hits them harder than the original abuse.

Words aren't physical violence but the concept of violent language is valid. Calls for violence and intentionally betraying or humiliating someone fits that category.

Can words be hurtful and destructive? Yes. Are words violence? Don't be ridiculous.

Language matters.

[USUC]

Words = violence is one of the most dangerous ideas in modern society.
My annoying focus on words and their meanings is not just to be pedantic. It's because words and their meanings often get deliberatley warped for political ends. So instead of fascism being a unique ideology and product of the early 20th century in Europe, a populist authoritarian is now a fascist. Because we killed fascists in the past (and glorify in the killing of them), if we warp the meaning of fascist to include MAGA, their killing can now be justified because they are fascists.

Or, criticism of Charlie Kirk = violence. So lets root all these people out, destroy their lives and livelihoods, and strip them of their rights as Americans.

Of course words can be harmful. But let's not pretend that death and psychological trauma are on equal grounds here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Words = violence is one of the most dangerous ideas in modern society.
My annoying focus on words and their meanings is not just to be pedantic. It's because words and their meanings often get deliberatley warped for political ends. So instead of fascism being a unique ideology and product of the early 20th century in Europe, a populist authoritarian is now a fascist. Because we killed fascists in the past (and glorify in the killing of them), if we warp the meaning of fascist to include MAGA, their killing can now be justified because they are fascists.

Or, criticism of Charlie Kirk = violence. So lets root all these people out, destroy their lives and livelihoods, and strip them of their rights as Americans.

Of course words can be harmful. But let's pretend that death and psychological trauma are on equal grounds here.

^not pretend

"Words = violence" sounds like a good excuse to kill someone like Charlie Kirk. It is insane.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Back to the free speech issue, good for Ted Cruz.

[tooblue]

Can words be hurtful and destructive? Yes. Are words violence? Don't be ridiculous.

Language matters.

Ironic that you state language matters, and clarity that words can be hurtful and destructive

Guess what else is hurtful and destructive: violence ... of all types.



It would be one thing if there was no research on the subject, but there is, and it is partly focused on physiology, not simply answers to surveys.

[tooblue]

^not pretend

"Words = violence" sounds like a good excuse to kill someone like Charlie Kirk. It is insane.

Again with the reductio ad absurdum ...

[tooblue]

Words = violence is one of the most dangerous ideas in modern society.
My annoying focus on words and their meanings is not just to be pedantic. It's because words and their meanings often get deliberatley warped for political ends. So instead of fascism being a unique ideology and product of the early 20th century in Europe, a populist authoritarian is now a fascist. Because we killed fascists in the past (and glorify in the killing of them), if we warp the meaning of fascist to include MAGA, their killing can now be justified because they are fascists.

Or, criticism of Charlie Kirk = violence. So lets root all these people out, destroy their lives and livelihoods, and strip them of their rights as Americans.

Of course words can be harmful. But let's pretend that death and psychological trauma are on equal grounds here.

Unfortunately, the research is demonstrating that words can cause considerable harm equivalent to physical harm. So, yes it is a dangerous idea that needs much more careful consideration.

[frank ryan]

Can words be hurtful and destructive? Yes. Are words violence? Don't be ridiculous.

Language matters.

Dude, I don't think I'm being ridiculous.

I feel like you didn't read my post or I didn't do well at communicating my thoughts. Language is not physical violence. The term violent language, as I take it to mean, is powerfully destructive and harmful that can sometimes urge actually violence.

Words can absolutely brutalize a person's psyche more than physical harm. This is a subject matter I feel I have some expertise around

[frank ryan]

Words = violence is one of the most dangerous ideas in modern society.
My annoying focus on words and their meanings is not just to be pedantic. It's because words and their meanings often get deliberatley warped for political ends. So instead of fascism being a unique ideology and product of the early 20th century in Europe, a populist authoritarian is now a fascist. Because we killed fascists in the past (and glorify in the killing of them), if we warp the meaning of fascist to include MAGA, their killing can now be justified because they are fascists.

Or, criticism of Charlie Kirk = violence. So lets root all these people out, destroy their lives and livelihoods, and strip them of their rights as Americans.

Of course words can be harmful. But let's pretend that death and psychological trauma are on equal grounds here.

Words aren't absolutely a major component of psychological trauma.

I've composed multiples post expressing what I understand fascism to be and end up feeling dismissed.

It is not justified to kill someone for being a fascist or communist. Don't assume that even if you feel those labels are unfairly deployed, that doesn't indicate a call to violence/

[wally]

Ironic that you state language matters, and clarity that words can be hurtful and destructive

Guess what else is hurtful and destructive: violence ... of all types.



It would be one thing if there was no research on the subject, but there is, and it is partly focused on physiology, not simply answers to surveys.

Okay, I will make a serious inquiry: if words are violence, then what level of legal enforcement should be allowed to protect people form that word violence, and how do you square the First Amendment with people who will undoubtedly claim victim status every time a topic and opinion come up that they find "violent" toward them?

My opinion is that asserting that words are violence is reckless and dangerous, because actual (physical) violence can then be justified as a response. This thinking will lead to more people justifying killing or physically harming other people they perceive as threatening them with words. Is that something you think is okay?

[Donuthole]

Back to the free speech issue, good for Ted Cruz.

Almost good for Ted Cruz. What he should be saying is "I don't like this at all, even though I don't agree with what Kimmel said. So I'm not happy he's off the air." What he actually said was "this is a preferred (for me) result from a bad act, and if we were to continually get results that I like from this, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But eventually someone will be in power that can use this for results that I don't like, so this is bad."

It's subtle, but it's notable. And it's a shame Ted Cruz can't just be against what is wrong for the sake of it being wrong. But Ted Cruz is going to Ted Cruz.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Dude, I don't think I'm being ridiculous.

I feel like you didn't read my post or I didn't do well at communicating my thoughts. Language is not physical violence. The term violent language, as I take it to mean, is powerfully destructive and harmful that can sometimes urge actually violence.

Words can absolutely brutalize a person's psyche more than physical harm. This is a subject matter I feel I have some expertise around

If words can be more dangerous that physical harm, should we outlaw hurtful speech?

[USUC]

^not pretend

"Words = violence" sounds like a good excuse to kill someone like Charlie Kirk. It is insane.

Fixed.