3 ms·

> speech is transmitted by the movement of air molecules Under this definition of "speech" English, which I understand, and Chinese, which I don't, would have

> speech is transmitted by the movement of air molecules Under this definition of "speech" English, which I understand, and Chinese, which I don't, would have the same effect on me. But of course they don't. When somebody speaks in English or another language I understand, I have no choice but to hear it, not as noise, but as meaning, as sensations and memories activated in my brain and body. Since you're German you probably like Kant. Korsgaard is a Kantian philosopher at Harvard: "If I say to you, “Picture a yellow spot!” you will. What exactly is happening? Are you simply cooperating with me? No, because at least without a certain active resistance you will not be able to help it. Is it a causal connection then? No, or at least not merely that, for if you picture a pink spot you will be mistaken, wrong. Causal connections cannot be wrong. What kind of necessity is this, both normative and compulsive? It is obligation. " https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/k/korsgaard94.pdf https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/k/korsgaar... p.78

mpweiher 8y ago
> would have the same effect on me What on earth leads you to make such a fallacious statement? > no choice but to hear it Sort of. You can wear ear-protection, turn on the music of your headphones, but overall it is arguably a bug of our physiology that we cannot close our ears the same way we can close our eyes. > If I say to you, “Picture a yellow spot!” you will. No, not necessarily. Also, this is not because speech is a command, but because we interpret speech automatically. So if I tell you "Whatever you do, do not picture a pink elephant", you will nevertheless think of a pink elephant, counter to the command I gave you. And of course, if I say "Jump off the bridge", you will probably not do so, because, again, it's not that speech is a command, but that we interpret speech more or less automatically. Anyway, no idea what any of this has to do with the question of whether speech is violence. > Since you're German you probably like Kant. Stereotype much?
- jeromebaek 8y ago
  > No, not necessarily. Also, this is not because speech is a command, but because we interpret speech automatically. So if I tell you "Whatever you do, do not picture a pink elephant", you will nevertheless think of a pink elephant, counter to the command I gave you. Very good, you almost grasped my point. In fact you even managed to produce spontaneously one of the most famous examples of this principle by the great philosopher George Lakoff (read "Don't Think of an Elephant!", which was used for Clinton's campaign) > we interpret speech more or less automatically This is more or less my point. Speech is interpreted automatically: it is not a choice to interpret it, or not. In cases of drastic power imbalance -- again, for example, parental emotional abuse of child -- the person on the receiving end of "violent speech" has no choice to not interpret whatever hate and bigotry the speech consists of. So "free speech" ends up encroaching on others' freedom: again, the listeners have no choice but to have their semantic lightbulbs activated. Sometimes, ironically, the belief that humans can always make choices, ends up creating less choices for humans.. > Stereotype much? :)
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    > you almost grasped my point. In fact you even managed to produce spontaneously one of the most famous examples of this principle Hmm...try to think for a second. Which do you think is more likely: (a) that I "spontaneously" produced this famous example, or (b) that I am actually quite familiar with the field in general and Lakoff's work in particular, for example by having studied linguistics? Hmmm... Rest assured that I disagree with you not out of ignorance of the point you are trying to make, but by knowing the point quite well and disagreeing with it, because it is incoherent. As I explained before, you are combining two very distinct things, first the more or less autonomous speech processing that we do and second the longer term effects, positive and negative. These two are not the same at all.
    - jeromebaek 8y ago
      > Which do you think is more likely ... Don't worry, I wasn't actually impressed, I was just trying to give you a compliment. (It sounds like you need one.) Yes, you've probably read a NYT article on Lakoff. But that does not count as "studying linguistics". > As I explained before, you are combining two very distinct things, first the more or less autonomous speech processing that we do and second the longer term effects, positive and negative. These two are not the same at all. So let's say automatic speech processing exists. (you admit as such.) Now combine this with: if somebody says A to me, over and over again, A will keep on being activated in my brain via automatic speech processing. Over time this automatic processing gets so engrained, it carves out a robust neural pathway that is not easily diverted. Note, I had no choice in this situation. It was not as if I asked a doctor to carve this particular neural pathway in my brain. No, the situation was rather some other person, with his/her own agenda, repeating A to me over and over again until A is literally part of me. The parallel to violence is that both take away human freedom. Of course speech isn't the exact same thing as a fist. Of course I can't punch you in the face with these words, however much I may or may not want to. :) The point isn't that they're the same; the point is that they're not as neatly separable as you seem to believe. Maybe you thinking along the lines of "either speech is violence, or speech is not violence". I am saying that this very framework is wrong. Speech and violence do not have a is-a (or is-not-a) relation between them. They have a much more complicated relation between them.

mpweiher 8y ago

> would have the same effect on me What on earth leads you to make such a fallacious statement? > no choice but to hear it Sort of. You can wear ear-protection, turn on the music of your headphones, but overall it is arguably a bug of our physiology that we cannot close our ears the same way we can close our eyes. > If I say to you, “Picture a yellow spot!” you will. No, not necessarily. Also, this is not because speech is a command, but because we interpret speech automatically. So if I tell you "Whatever you do, do not picture a pink elephant", you will nevertheless think of a pink elephant, counter to the command I gave you. And of course, if I say "Jump off the bridge", you will probably not do so, because, again, it's not that speech is a command, but that we interpret speech more or less automatically. Anyway, no idea what any of this has to do with the question of whether speech is violence. > Since you're German you probably like Kant. Stereotype much?

jeromebaek 8y ago
> No, not necessarily. Also, this is not because speech is a command, but because we interpret speech automatically. So if I tell you "Whatever you do, do not picture a pink elephant", you will nevertheless think of a pink elephant, counter to the command I gave you. Very good, you almost grasped my point. In fact you even managed to produce spontaneously one of the most famous examples of this principle by the great philosopher George Lakoff (read "Don't Think of an Elephant!", which was used for Clinton's campaign) > we interpret speech more or less automatically This is more or less my point. Speech is interpreted automatically: it is not a choice to interpret it, or not. In cases of drastic power imbalance -- again, for example, parental emotional abuse of child -- the person on the receiving end of "violent speech" has no choice to not interpret whatever hate and bigotry the speech consists of. So "free speech" ends up encroaching on others' freedom: again, the listeners have no choice but to have their semantic lightbulbs activated. Sometimes, ironically, the belief that humans can always make choices, ends up creating less choices for humans.. > Stereotype much? :)
- mpweiher 8y ago
  > you almost grasped my point. In fact you even managed to produce spontaneously one of the most famous examples of this principle Hmm...try to think for a second. Which do you think is more likely: (a) that I "spontaneously" produced this famous example, or (b) that I am actually quite familiar with the field in general and Lakoff's work in particular, for example by having studied linguistics? Hmmm... Rest assured that I disagree with you not out of ignorance of the point you are trying to make, but by knowing the point quite well and disagreeing with it, because it is incoherent. As I explained before, you are combining two very distinct things, first the more or less autonomous speech processing that we do and second the longer term effects, positive and negative. These two are not the same at all.
  - jeromebaek 8y ago
    > Which do you think is more likely ... Don't worry, I wasn't actually impressed, I was just trying to give you a compliment. (It sounds like you need one.) Yes, you've probably read a NYT article on Lakoff. But that does not count as "studying linguistics". > As I explained before, you are combining two very distinct things, first the more or less autonomous speech processing that we do and second the longer term effects, positive and negative. These two are not the same at all. So let's say automatic speech processing exists. (you admit as such.) Now combine this with: if somebody says A to me, over and over again, A will keep on being activated in my brain via automatic speech processing. Over time this automatic processing gets so engrained, it carves out a robust neural pathway that is not easily diverted. Note, I had no choice in this situation. It was not as if I asked a doctor to carve this particular neural pathway in my brain. No, the situation was rather some other person, with his/her own agenda, repeating A to me over and over again until A is literally part of me. The parallel to violence is that both take away human freedom. Of course speech isn't the exact same thing as a fist. Of course I can't punch you in the face with these words, however much I may or may not want to. :) The point isn't that they're the same; the point is that they're not as neatly separable as you seem to believe. Maybe you thinking along the lines of "either speech is violence, or speech is not violence". I am saying that this very framework is wrong. Speech and violence do not have a is-a (or is-not-a) relation between them. They have a much more complicated relation between them.