President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[tooblue]

Disagree. You and I use the English language differently.

So be it, but I am citing scientific evidence.

[wally]

The research is published. It is not isolated except in its particular area of focus. There is a large body of evidence that informs further investigation—evidence from thousands of hours of therapy by an array of professionals ranging from psychiatrists to psychotherapists, to social workers and counsellors.

What JL "said" is a logical fallacy. The next time your wife tells you to take a cold shower, tell her that's a potentially fallacious response to your query

I was just going off of your citations in your previous post. Why didn't you cite a better reference?

I totally understand what you are trying to say and let me restate: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per research." I think that is still a far cry from "words are violence."

I still think the "words are violence" mantra is dangerous and misleading. I think that some actors (not you, necessarily) would love to use this as justification to silence opinions that they disagree with on grounds that those opinions/words are akin (or maybe the same??) as physical violence. I think this is an extremely slippery slope toward justifying actual physical violence.

I do not dispute that verbal abuse is very damaging. I have seen it first hand in the lives of people i love. To take a situation involving abuse (which i am also assuming also involves elements of betrayal by family and loved ones, because after all, those are the most likely abusers) and then find psychological similarity to victims of physical violence, and then boil it all down to a simple phrase: "words are violence" (your assertion in your post) That is a gross oversimplification and absolutely disingenuous in my opinion. To glom onto that phrase and repeat it and spread it REALLY smells like some sort of activist effort to create some sort of manipulative endpoint. Maybe it is just your professional jargon present in psychology circles, but if so, I would urge you to keep it there and find another way of communicating this concept outside of that narrow audience.

Also, you are the one who brought this up in the political discussion thread, so I assumed that you intended to make a political point with it, which I still think is irresponsible and dangerous, but HEY I'M JUST SOME RANDO DIPSHIT ON THE INTERNET SO WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW!?!?!

[Bo Diddley]

Has the SC put limits on speech in any way?

[frank ryan]

Because language is not a form of violence. I hope this helps.

I've stated that they are not literal violence multiple times. I am literally saying that the idea of violent language doesn't mean literal physical action but rather emotionally harmful stuff. It's a term.

I am not in favor of restricting people from saying mean things.

There is a seperate contention I'm having. The idea that emotional abuse can be more problematic than physical violence isn't new or remotely controversial.

[frank ryan]

Has the SC put limits on speech in any way?

Yes. Fighting words attempting to start violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel aren't protected.

But America has had one of the most generous and pro-free speech cultures and legal systems in the world.
It's one of our greatest attributes.

In other countries they have hate speech laws which I find well-intended by harmful and controlling

[frank ryan]

Is there anything physically communicated? Because I've heard that in communication, 85% is non verbal.

For sure. Someone can say I'm doing fine, but the meaning is found in body language, tone etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is there anything physically communicated? Because I've heard that in communication, 85% is non verbal.

Body language is not violence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I was just going off of your citations in your previous post. Why didn't you cite a better reference?

I totally understand what you are trying to say and let me restate: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per research." I think that is still a far cry from "words are violence."

I still think the "words are violence" mantra is dangerous and misleading. I think that some actors (not you, necessarily) would love to use this as justification to silence opinions that they disagree with on grounds that those opinions/words are akin (or maybe the same??) as physical violence. I think this is an extremely slippery slope toward justifying actual physical violence.

I do not dispute that verbal abuse is very damaging. I have seen it first hand in the lives of people i love. To take a situation involving abuse (which i am also assuming also involves elements of betrayal by family and loved ones, because after all, those are the most likely abusers) and then find psychological similarity to victims of physical violence, and then boil it all down to a simple phrase: "words are violence" (your assertion in your post) That is a gross oversimplification and absolutely disingenuous in my opinion. To glom onto that phrase and repeat it and spread it REALLY smells like some sort of activist effort to create some sort of manipulative endpoint. Maybe it is just your professional jargon present in psychology circles, but if so, I would urge you to keep it there and find another way of communicating this concept outside of that narrow audience.

Also, you are the one who brought this up in the political discussion thread, so I assumed that you intended to make a political point with it, which I still think is irresponsible and dangerous, but HEY I'M JUST SOME RANDO DIPSHIT ON THE INTERNET SO WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW!?!?!

You are not a rando dipshit, wally. In fact, you are pretty awesome.

[Bo Diddley]

For sure. Someone can say I'm doing fine, but the meaning is found in body language, tone etc.

My point is that with face to face communication, you can't divorce language from the physical aspect of it. I have been the recipient of some pretty harsh verbal communication that sure felt like violence to me. I suppose it was the physical gestures and the way the body physically made the sounds, but to try and divorce the two is a bit simplistic. Only siths speak in absolutes!

[Bo Diddley]

Body language is not violence.

So body language should never elicit a physical response?

[tooblue]

I was just going off of your citations in your previous post. Why didn't you cite a better reference?

I totally understand what you are trying to say and let me restate: "words can produce similar psychological effects as some instances of violence, per research." I think that is still a far cry from "words are violence."

I still think the "words are violence" mantra is dangerous and misleading. I think that some actors (not you, necessarily) would love to use this as justification to silence opinions that they disagree with on grounds that those opinions/words are akin (or maybe the same??) as physical violence. I think this is an extremely slippery slope toward justifying actual physical violence.

I do not dispute that verbal abuse is very damaging. I have seen it first hand in the lives of people i love. To take a situation involving abuse (which i am also assuming also involves elements of betrayal by family and loved ones, because after all, those are the most likely abusers) and then find psychological similarity to victims of physical violence, and then boil it all down to a simple phrase: "words are violence" (your assertion in your post) That is a gross oversimplification and absolutely disingenuous in my opinion. To glom onto that phrase and repeat it and spread it REALLY smells like some sort of activist effort to create some sort of manipulative endpoint. Maybe it is just your professional jargon present in psychology circles, but if so, I would urge you to keep it there and find another way of communicating this concept outside of that narrow audience.

Also, you are the one who brought this up in the political discussion thread, so I assumed that you intended to make a political point with it, which I still think is irresponsible and dangerous, but HEY I'M JUST SOME RANDO DIPSHIT ON THE INTERNET SO WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW!?!?!

I cited the article in the Harvard news source and a link to the published research.

Maybe it is too simple a declaration, but then so is: "words are not violence."

Agreed. It is a dangerous idea. I disagree it is misleading. I agree there are actors that have acted as you suggest, and now they are having to reckon with their rhetoric. It is a slippery slope that we are not just witnessing from afar—we are on the slope and well into the slide.

I understand it smells like activist rhetoric. Again, current events are a reckoning. Again, maybe it is too simple a declaration, but then so is: "words are not violence." There is much more nuance and understanding required.

Yes, I brought it up because it is relevant to current events. More understanding is required. No where have I suggested what I have written offers justification for assassination. Charlie Kirk's murder is unfathomable. I am still struggling to process what occurred. There is no justification and seemingly no sense in it all. I am not a psychologist of any kind. I do enjoy reading research, derivative of my own research which focused heavily on the impact of strong emotion. I deal with a large number of young people daily struggling with their identity and sense of self. I have learned to be very thoughtful with my words, not out of fear of repercussions, but simply because I don't want to do harm—which at this point in time almost seems impossible.

[frank ryan]

My point is that with face to face communication, you can't divorce language from the physical aspect of it. I have been the recipient of some pretty harsh verbal communication that sure felt like violence to me. I suppose it was the physical gestures and the way the body physically made the sounds, but to try and divorce the two is a bit simplistic. Only siths speak in absolutes!

For sure. You've worked in environments where misreading body language can you put your physical safety at risk. At the start of my career, when I worked in behavioral/psych ward, you have to develop an ability to read body language.

People posturing like they are about to fight etc.

There is so much with non verbal communication. Think of how someone can perceive being ogled by someone they find creepy. That can illicit responses that have nothing to do with words

[Jeff Lebowski]

So body language should never elicit a physical response?

Good grief. I can't keep up these straw men.

See wally post above.

[Bo Diddley]

Good grief. I can't keep up these straw men.

See wally post above.

Not straw men, just trying to understand the limits of the definitions.

[tooblue]

Not straw men, just trying to understand the limits of the definitions.

You have not made a strawman argument—there is no intentional misrepresentation made in your post. In the context of this discussion, it is reasonable to extend the discussion to body language.