4 ms·
> I think you are also confusing "harms the body" with "feels like pain" Nope, wrong again. I am talking about cases where abusive speech is systematic, unesca
by jeromebaek 8y ago
> I think you are also confusing "harms the body" with "feels like pain"
Nope, wrong again. I am talking about cases where abusive speech is systematic, unescapable, and occurring in the context of a drastic power imbalance. Parental child abuse, for example. I can point you to countless studies where parental child abuse leads to physically harmed bodies, harm here consisting of chronic unmitigated pain, autoimmune disorders, even brain tumors. For a start, try "The Body Keeps the Score" by Bessel van der Kolk
- mpweiher 8y agoYes, and I clearly wrote to that, but points for completely ignoring what I wrote and instead arguing against more straw-men you constructed.
- jeromebaek 8y ago> just because there is a pain sensation as if you were physically harmed does not mean you were physically harmed. ... long-term cortisol exposure will cause negative effects on the body, but again not everything that causes harm is violence. > If I drop a banana peel and you slip on it, that causes you harm, but it is not violence. This part of your reply was too silly to even warrant a reply. You are the one setting up a straw man. The article does not say (nor do I): "speech causes harm, if x causes harm, x is violence, therefore speech is violence", which is what you are arguing ("not everything that causes harm is violence"). Violence, obviously, is meaningless unless there is some person behind the violent act. This is why your silly sentence "bananas are literally violence" is incoherent: you are confusing an act (speech) with a thing (banana). You are constructing a meta-straw-man by construing me as a straw-man construer.