4 ms·

> If, however, you were referring to my use of the term "verbal violence" as opposed to "verbal abuse", it's nothing other than a linguistic mistake on my part.

> If, however, you were referring to my use of the term "verbal violence" as opposed to "verbal abuse", it's nothing other than a linguistic mistake on my part. Verbal violence is how verbal abuse is called in my native language. Ah, ok. Verbal abuse is a sensible term to me, whereas verbal violence is not.

pron 11y ago
Just that you know, the term for "verbal abuse" is "verbal violence" in more than one language.
- RickHull 11y ago
  Sure, but in English, violence implies physical abuse. This distinction is captured by the old nursery rhyme: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"
  - pron 11y ago
    In French, where English got the word violence from, "violence verbale", is how you say verbal abuse. And it's not the only language where it is so. And it is funny (and perhaps even ironic) you should bring up that nursery rhyme. One of the very first things you learn when you study history is that in order to know the state of certain societies, read what they legislated, wanted to legislate, or warned against. No one legislates or warns against things that don't happen. The reason that is a nursery rhyme, rather than, say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but bubbles never hurt me", is precisely because words do hurt. But a much more profound thing to understand is that those who have power rarely need to exert it physically over others. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own team as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling (you can read about it here [1] and here [2]). Signalling is a very real thing in most (advanced) animals. Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed, but that doesn't mean it's not very real. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
    - RickHull 11y ago
      Here is the distinction, I think: Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. In the case of physical abuse, the intuitive presumption is that coercion dominates any voluntary component.
      - pron 11y ago
        > Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. That is factually wrong. People are abused in school and in their workplace. Of course, they could choose to change schools or workplace, but the existence of the abuse is a severe, coercive, limitation of their freedom. Most common form of coercions work in non-physically-violent ways, both in human and animal societies. Coercion is not binary, and bodily harm is not the only coercive force. Not recognizing that is simply ignorance of both human psychology and sociology as well as zoology. It's a little like saying, "in physics, the only force that matters is the electromagnetic force!" I understand that you're making an assertion of value, but values should (I believe) at least be somewhat based on fact. If an experiment were to show that physical force coerced 100% of people to do something, and intimidation coerced 80% of people, you could not say that intimidation is not coercion. You could say that intimidation is a strong coercive force, but one that is weaker than physical violence, and with that I -- and everyone else -- would agree. My point is that the effect of intimidation on people is a matter of empirical observation -- not an assertion of value -- that yields clear results, even if the effect size is less than 100%.

pron 11y ago

Just that you know, the term for "verbal abuse" is "verbal violence" in more than one language.

RickHull 11y ago
Sure, but in English, violence implies physical abuse. This distinction is captured by the old nursery rhyme: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"
- pron 11y ago
  In French, where English got the word violence from, "violence verbale", is how you say verbal abuse. And it's not the only language where it is so. And it is funny (and perhaps even ironic) you should bring up that nursery rhyme. One of the very first things you learn when you study history is that in order to know the state of certain societies, read what they legislated, wanted to legislate, or warned against. No one legislates or warns against things that don't happen. The reason that is a nursery rhyme, rather than, say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but bubbles never hurt me", is precisely because words do hurt. But a much more profound thing to understand is that those who have power rarely need to exert it physically over others. Intimidation is enough, and is common in nature, too. Any sort of physical struggle bears a lot of risk for both sides involved (even if it's leopard vs. gazelle), so animals try to avoid violence by communicating their strength both to rivals in their own team as well as to potential prey or predators. It is called signalling (you can read about it here [1] and here [2]). Signalling is a very real thing in most (advanced) animals. Obviously, being intimidated is not the same as being killed, but that doesn't mean it's not very real. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
  - RickHull 11y ago
    Here is the distinction, I think: Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. In the case of physical abuse, the intuitive presumption is that coercion dominates any voluntary component.
    - pron 11y ago
      > Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. That is factually wrong. People are abused in school and in their workplace. Of course, they could choose to change schools or workplace, but the existence of the abuse is a severe, coercive, limitation of their freedom. Most common form of coercions work in non-physically-violent ways, both in human and animal societies. Coercion is not binary, and bodily harm is not the only coercive force. Not recognizing that is simply ignorance of both human psychology and sociology as well as zoology. It's a little like saying, "in physics, the only force that matters is the electromagnetic force!" I understand that you're making an assertion of value, but values should (I believe) at least be somewhat based on fact. If an experiment were to show that physical force coerced 100% of people to do something, and intimidation coerced 80% of people, you could not say that intimidation is not coercion. You could say that intimidation is a strong coercive force, but one that is weaker than physical violence, and with that I -- and everyone else -- would agree. My point is that the effect of intimidation on people is a matter of empirical observation -- not an assertion of value -- that yields clear results, even if the effect size is less than 100%.