7 ms·

From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in

From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force). I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.

lordkrandel 1y ago
"Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.) > what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal. There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical. > I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
- ilikehurdles 1y ago
  Orwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    Nope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical. > Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology. This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
    - schoen 1y ago
      Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility. In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something). All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        I'm arguing a cultural perspective. Edit: Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.

lordkrandel 1y ago

"Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.) > what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal. There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical. > I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.

ilikehurdles 1y ago
Orwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  Nope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical. > Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology. This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
  - schoen 1y ago
    Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility. In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something). All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      I'm arguing a cultural perspective. Edit: Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.