3 ms·

> 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 p

> 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
    > Yes, you've probably read a NYT article on Lakoff. Nope. > But that does not count as "studying linguistics". You're right, it doesn't. Studying linguistics counts as "studying linguistics". If you don't know what "studying linguistics" means, I really can't help you.
  - dang 8y ago
    There are two problems with your posts to this thread. First, you have repeatedly resorted to personal nastiness. That will get you banned on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel or how wrong someone else is or feels. Perhaps you don't owe better to each other, but you definitely owe better to this community if you want to keep posting here. Second, you've been practicing full-out ideological flamewar. HN is not a place for that. It's a place for intellectual curiosity. The two are not compatible, in the same way that gardens are not compatible with scorched earth. We have many years of experience with what happens on the internet when people flame each other like this, or try to take the culture of rough-and-tumble argument into a large public forum. It leads to the destruction of the community, so we have to be proactive about moderating it. Please use HN for thoughtful, substantive discussion, not smiting enemies. If you'd review the site rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them, we'd appreciate it.
- dang 8y ago
  > try to think for a second Please don't be uncivil on HN. We've had to ask you this many times before. If you can't or won't control this impulse, we're going to end up banning you. Please don't do it again. You may not owe better to each other, but you owe better to this community, which only exists as a place for thoughtful discussion because most people restrain themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    Hmm...when taken out of context, I would totally agree that "try to think for a second" appears uncivil. But taking it out of its context seems...less than charitable. The context was "... Which do you think is more likely: (a) ... (b) ...." So it wasn't "you @#$, can't you even THINK for a goddarn second?!", but "hey, when you take a moment to consider, which of these do you see as more likely", which I have a hard time seeing as uncivil. Of course, your site, your rules and your interpretation of those rules. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - dang 8y ago
      The problem is that you cross this line a lot. I'm sure you don't mean to, but it has the effect of making you seem rude and uncivil in arguments. No doubt different cultural standards are in play, too; but HN is a highly international site, so if we're to avoid turning into a war zone, people need to err on the side of being respectful.

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
  > Yes, you've probably read a NYT article on Lakoff. Nope. > But that does not count as "studying linguistics". You're right, it doesn't. Studying linguistics counts as "studying linguistics". If you don't know what "studying linguistics" means, I really can't help you.
- dang 8y ago
  There are two problems with your posts to this thread. First, you have repeatedly resorted to personal nastiness. That will get you banned on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel or how wrong someone else is or feels. Perhaps you don't owe better to each other, but you definitely owe better to this community if you want to keep posting here. Second, you've been practicing full-out ideological flamewar. HN is not a place for that. It's a place for intellectual curiosity. The two are not compatible, in the same way that gardens are not compatible with scorched earth. We have many years of experience with what happens on the internet when people flame each other like this, or try to take the culture of rough-and-tumble argument into a large public forum. It leads to the destruction of the community, so we have to be proactive about moderating it. Please use HN for thoughtful, substantive discussion, not smiting enemies. If you'd review the site rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them, we'd appreciate it.
dang 8y ago
> try to think for a second Please don't be uncivil on HN. We've had to ask you this many times before. If you can't or won't control this impulse, we're going to end up banning you. Please don't do it again. You may not owe better to each other, but you owe better to this community, which only exists as a place for thoughtful discussion because most people restrain themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mpweiher 8y ago
  Hmm...when taken out of context, I would totally agree that "try to think for a second" appears uncivil. But taking it out of its context seems...less than charitable. The context was "... Which do you think is more likely: (a) ... (b) ...." So it wasn't "you @#$, can't you even THINK for a goddarn second?!", but "hey, when you take a moment to consider, which of these do you see as more likely", which I have a hard time seeing as uncivil. Of course, your site, your rules and your interpretation of those rules. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - dang 8y ago
    The problem is that you cross this line a lot. I'm sure you don't mean to, but it has the effect of making you seem rude and uncivil in arguments. No doubt different cultural standards are in play, too; but HN is a highly international site, so if we're to avoid turning into a war zone, people need to err on the side of being respectful.