6 ms·

Speech is not violence. The author's conflation of the two trivializes actual physical violence.

jnevill 10y ago
Speech can definitely be violence and suggesting otherwise trivializes emotional abuse and trauma faced by those that suffer from PTSD and other mental illnesses.
- patrickmay 10y ago
  Speech can be abusive; I see no one trivializing that. It is not violence.
peterwwillis 10y ago
http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/aboutnvc/nonviolent_communication.htm http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/aboutnvc/nonviolent_c... https://www.heartland.edu/documents/idc/What%20is%20violent%20comm%20and%20nvc%20(Winters).pdf https://www.heartland.edu/documents/idc/What%20is%20violent%...
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Again, in both cases it's using violence as a rhetorical trick. Verbal and emotional abuse of children are serious issues, but they do NOT have to be violent for them to be horrible. The conflation of the two muddies the language that we have to describe the events that happen to us. If someone says, my parents were very violent to me, what would you assume happened? Doesn't knowing that there was physical abuse help give context that helps you respond to the situation?
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    Did you even read the links? 'Violent speech' and 'violent communication' are a form of violence. They have a nuanced definition. They can be used in multiple ways. Language is not strict. It is fluid, it changes over time, and in this case, totally applies to the subject. You are arguing for an unrealistic, unenforceable, overly-literal use of language.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Rhetorical nuances in the service of emotional manipulation are not yet considered definitional. You and others are free to misuse words, and I and others are free to point out it is rhetorical bullshit.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      We have word-phrases for what you're talking about. More nuanced than your proposed catch-all of 'violent communication.' As someone who's been on the receiving end of a large portion of 'violent communication', it's much easier, and significantly more validating to say 'emotional abuse' or 'hate speech'. I don't understand what about asking violence to retain its definition is unrealistic. It's an important word with important implications. (I did read the links -- that's how I pulled an example out of them. You really are a fan of rhetorical pot shots!)
      - peterwwillis 10y ago
        Violent communication is an umbrella term for a variety of causes and effects. It may not be hateful. It may not be abusive. But it has the quality and characteristics of the intent to cause harm, which is what violence is. But going back to your main assertion here, you say that the word 'violence' has a particular definition, and the use of this phrase does not retain it, and that it thus harms people's interpretation of the word and its meaning. Let's see if that's true. The American Psychological Association defines it as this: " Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder. Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁. Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding." The Oxford dictionary has this definition: "violence. Pronunciation: /ˈvī(ə)ləns/. noun. 1) Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. 1.1) 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀. 1.2) Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. To do violence to. Damage or adversely affect. Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin violentia, from violent- 'vehement, violent' (see violent)." Wikipedia has this to say: "Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, 𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀. However, generally, 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 (by a person and against a person)." Also note that Wikipedia (and many other sources) define the types of violence as self-directed, interpersonal, and collective, spanning acts such as physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, and emotional. (Other sources include expanded or additional categories) -- You'll note that in many definitions, the term encompasses several iterations on the theme, such as assault and non-physical harm. (As a fellow linguist, i'm sure you're aware that the definitions of the word "assault" in both a legal and non-legal context includes non-physical harm) According to multiple sources, the definition of the word flies in the face of your more strict interpretation. But you also mention catch-all word-phrases for things like this - like 'violent communication'! You can also notice that since the word 'violent' is in the phrase - and since it is the root word of 'violence' - and since their mutual definitions span the same subjects and imply the same cause and effect - that it isn't a perversion of the original word's meaning at all, but merely elucidates a particular category of thing the root word wouldn't have directly described as well. Now, let's finally address your love of the word 'rhetorical'. The word 'rhetorical', in a general definition, is to form a question in order to make a point rather than elicit an answer. Taking into account the rest of my argument & evidence on the original subject, don't you think it might be more useful to use language to point out a flaw in logic, rather than trying to break down someone's argument with ad-hominem attacks?
nostrebored 10y ago
Completely true. We're losing the meaning of words because people want to sensationalize their points. Speech can be hateful, harmful, hurtful, etc., but it is not violent. Speech can incite violence, but it is still not actually violence. We see this all of the time when people want to resort to hyperbole -- "misgendering a trans person is violence!" It doesn't further your case, it's just using a cheap rhetorical trick.
dabockster 10y ago
This whole thing reminded me of protected vs non-protected speech in the definition of First Amendment law. There's a really good legal precedent on why violence-inducing speech is banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...
intended 10y ago
"Negroes not allowed" on an entrance would count as just words. And yet those words perform a locutionary act and enforce behavior. Yes speech is not the same thing as actively hitting someone or throwing someone out of a club. But At the same time there are classes of speech which cause direct harm. To be pedantic about it, words can cause physical pain, fear, stress and anxiety. So words have been demonstrated to cause physical harm. In short: your erecting a false dichotomy/comparison. There is violent speech, and yes it's not the same as physical violence. It's not considered to be. Additionally, I think your short sentence encapsulates a particularly incorrect assessment of the modern world, and especially life "online". Online Life is locution. An unusually large portion of ones persona lives in words exchanged online. All actions that occur which silence someone, elevate someone else, instruct, confuse, insult or praise do so through words. Speech is everything online.
thex10 10y ago
You completely lost me here. Violence can happen through a variety of mechanisms. There's no body that can insist that only the physical tearing of flesh or bone is encapsulated by the word 'violence'.

Speech can definitely be violence and suggesting otherwise trivializes emotional abuse and trauma faced by those that suffer from PTSD and other mental illnesses.

patrickmay 10y ago
Speech can be abusive; I see no one trivializing that. It is not violence.

peterwwillis 10y ago

http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/aboutnvc/nonviolent_communication.htm http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/aboutnvc/nonviolent_c... https://www.heartland.edu/documents/idc/What%20is%20violent%20comm%20and%20nvc%20(Winters).pdf https://www.heartland.edu/documents/idc/What%20is%20violent%...

nostrebored 10y ago
Again, in both cases it's using violence as a rhetorical trick. Verbal and emotional abuse of children are serious issues, but they do NOT have to be violent for them to be horrible. The conflation of the two muddies the language that we have to describe the events that happen to us. If someone says, my parents were very violent to me, what would you assume happened? Doesn't knowing that there was physical abuse help give context that helps you respond to the situation?
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  Did you even read the links? 'Violent speech' and 'violent communication' are a form of violence. They have a nuanced definition. They can be used in multiple ways. Language is not strict. It is fluid, it changes over time, and in this case, totally applies to the subject. You are arguing for an unrealistic, unenforceable, overly-literal use of language.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Rhetorical nuances in the service of emotional manipulation are not yet considered definitional. You and others are free to misuse words, and I and others are free to point out it is rhetorical bullshit.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    We have word-phrases for what you're talking about. More nuanced than your proposed catch-all of 'violent communication.' As someone who's been on the receiving end of a large portion of 'violent communication', it's much easier, and significantly more validating to say 'emotional abuse' or 'hate speech'. I don't understand what about asking violence to retain its definition is unrealistic. It's an important word with important implications. (I did read the links -- that's how I pulled an example out of them. You really are a fan of rhetorical pot shots!)
    - peterwwillis 10y ago
      Violent communication is an umbrella term for a variety of causes and effects. It may not be hateful. It may not be abusive. But it has the quality and characteristics of the intent to cause harm, which is what violence is. But going back to your main assertion here, you say that the word 'violence' has a particular definition, and the use of this phrase does not retain it, and that it thus harms people's interpretation of the word and its meaning. Let's see if that's true. The American Psychological Association defines it as this: " Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder. Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁. Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding." The Oxford dictionary has this definition: "violence. Pronunciation: /ˈvī(ə)ləns/. noun. 1) Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. 1.1) 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀. 1.2) Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. To do violence to. Damage or adversely affect. Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin violentia, from violent- 'vehement, violent' (see violent)." Wikipedia has this to say: "Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, 𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝘀. However, generally, 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 (by a person and against a person)." Also note that Wikipedia (and many other sources) define the types of violence as self-directed, interpersonal, and collective, spanning acts such as physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, and emotional. (Other sources include expanded or additional categories) -- You'll note that in many definitions, the term encompasses several iterations on the theme, such as assault and non-physical harm. (As a fellow linguist, i'm sure you're aware that the definitions of the word "assault" in both a legal and non-legal context includes non-physical harm) According to multiple sources, the definition of the word flies in the face of your more strict interpretation. But you also mention catch-all word-phrases for things like this - like 'violent communication'! You can also notice that since the word 'violent' is in the phrase - and since it is the root word of 'violence' - and since their mutual definitions span the same subjects and imply the same cause and effect - that it isn't a perversion of the original word's meaning at all, but merely elucidates a particular category of thing the root word wouldn't have directly described as well. Now, let's finally address your love of the word 'rhetorical'. The word 'rhetorical', in a general definition, is to form a question in order to make a point rather than elicit an answer. Taking into account the rest of my argument & evidence on the original subject, don't you think it might be more useful to use language to point out a flaw in logic, rather than trying to break down someone's argument with ad-hominem attacks?

nostrebored 10y ago

Completely true. We're losing the meaning of words because people want to sensationalize their points. Speech can be hateful, harmful, hurtful, etc., but it is not violent. Speech can incite violence, but it is still not actually violence. We see this all of the time when people want to resort to hyperbole -- "misgendering a trans person is violence!" It doesn't further your case, it's just using a cheap rhetorical trick.

dabockster 10y ago

This whole thing reminded me of protected vs non-protected speech in the definition of First Amendment law. There's a really good legal precedent on why violence-inducing speech is banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

intended 10y ago

"Negroes not allowed" on an entrance would count as just words. And yet those words perform a locutionary act and enforce behavior. Yes speech is not the same thing as actively hitting someone or throwing someone out of a club. But At the same time there are classes of speech which cause direct harm. To be pedantic about it, words can cause physical pain, fear, stress and anxiety. So words have been demonstrated to cause physical harm. In short: your erecting a false dichotomy/comparison. There is violent speech, and yes it's not the same as physical violence. It's not considered to be. Additionally, I think your short sentence encapsulates a particularly incorrect assessment of the modern world, and especially life "online". Online Life is locution. An unusually large portion of ones persona lives in words exchanged online. All actions that occur which silence someone, elevate someone else, instruct, confuse, insult or praise do so through words. Speech is everything online.

thex10 10y ago

You completely lost me here. Violence can happen through a variety of mechanisms. There's no body that can insist that only the physical tearing of flesh or bone is encapsulated by the word 'violence'.