6 ms·

I don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so bec

I don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so because certain people use it regularly when discussing these issues. Nor is your choice to use it any less political. You can’t wash your hands of it by pointing to others’ use. What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence). People, rightly or wrongly, object to the conflation of speech and violence. I happen to think the normalization of speech as violence is dangerous doublespeak. What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost?

Kye 7y ago
>> "What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost? " Gained: the ability to identify how words and actions can eventually lead to physical (or other kinds of) violence rather than be surprised when it happens. Maybe it could even lead to intervention! Lost: awe and mystery at how physical violence happens? I'm at a loss. Having language and concepts to understand stuff is pretty handy. >> "What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence)." Call to violence is more direct. "Go murder that asshole!" The many faces of non-physical violence are rarely so direct. Economic violence, for example, can set the conditions for physical violence. If prejudice as manifested through poverty (economic violence) makes it impossible for someone to live a good life, they may go out and rob someone or join a gang. They're more vulnerable to radicalization in general. In my experience, people who get hung up on the "violence" part don't really care what you call it. They reject the idea of words mattering wholesale. Using gay as an insult, calling black people thugs, and the many worse kinds of awful never go anywhere, so it doesn't matter to them. To them, there's no point in caring in the first place. You don't even get to discussing what to call harmful words and systems with them because they don't see that words can lead to harm and they reject the notion of human systems. We might as well call it violence and be done with it. You weren't going to find a palatable alternative. It's a philosophical difference between "...and words can never hurt me" and "...words precede the sticks and stones." The former is fun to say before a bully kicks your ass. The latter is more reasonable once you've seen what words can do. Or more simply: If words don't matter, who cares if I call non-physical violence violence? They're just words...
- jlawson 7y ago
  Calling words 'violence' is like calling a restaurant recommendation 'eating'. A call to eat is not eating; A call to violence is not violence. It's simply nonsense. In fact there's no area where people are trying to equate words with the actions they might lead to. People oppose words on the grounds of what they might lead to, but that's very different from saying the words are what they might lead to. But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. The benefit is: People with weak ideas recognize that they won't win a neutral exchange of ideas. So they want to avoid the frame where the interaction is just a neutral exchange of ideas. Instead, they try to change the contest to something they can win - a violent power struggle. They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? Because they sense they can win a contest of power, but they might not win a neutral exchange of ideas. There's nothing else to it - it's pure bad-faith power games straight out of 1920's Russia. Of course, it's poisonous to civilization, since it weakens the discussion norms we need to find truth and good paths forward.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. Interesting take. We'll get back to this in a moment. > They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? And yet weirdly you're part of a group hear arguing that we should not call this violence? If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? So long as no punch is thrown, you've been arguing no foul has been committed! If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence, then why are you arguing that you don't want it used against you? Perhaps we should ask our resident 13-dimensional chess player who saw this question coming, jlawson. > But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. > They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence used against you and thus granting you a moral right to invoke those very same mechanics.
KirinDave 7y ago
The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position? Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.
- jancsika 7y ago
  > For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears? OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. > Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent. Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is. > Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument. Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.

Kye 7y ago

>> "What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost? " Gained: the ability to identify how words and actions can eventually lead to physical (or other kinds of) violence rather than be surprised when it happens. Maybe it could even lead to intervention! Lost: awe and mystery at how physical violence happens? I'm at a loss. Having language and concepts to understand stuff is pretty handy. >> "What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence)." Call to violence is more direct. "Go murder that asshole!" The many faces of non-physical violence are rarely so direct. Economic violence, for example, can set the conditions for physical violence. If prejudice as manifested through poverty (economic violence) makes it impossible for someone to live a good life, they may go out and rob someone or join a gang. They're more vulnerable to radicalization in general. In my experience, people who get hung up on the "violence" part don't really care what you call it. They reject the idea of words mattering wholesale. Using gay as an insult, calling black people thugs, and the many worse kinds of awful never go anywhere, so it doesn't matter to them. To them, there's no point in caring in the first place. You don't even get to discussing what to call harmful words and systems with them because they don't see that words can lead to harm and they reject the notion of human systems. We might as well call it violence and be done with it. You weren't going to find a palatable alternative. It's a philosophical difference between "...and words can never hurt me" and "...words precede the sticks and stones." The former is fun to say before a bully kicks your ass. The latter is more reasonable once you've seen what words can do. Or more simply: If words don't matter, who cares if I call non-physical violence violence? They're just words...

jlawson 7y ago
Calling words 'violence' is like calling a restaurant recommendation 'eating'. A call to eat is not eating; A call to violence is not violence. It's simply nonsense. In fact there's no area where people are trying to equate words with the actions they might lead to. People oppose words on the grounds of what they might lead to, but that's very different from saying the words are what they might lead to. But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. The benefit is: People with weak ideas recognize that they won't win a neutral exchange of ideas. So they want to avoid the frame where the interaction is just a neutral exchange of ideas. Instead, they try to change the contest to something they can win - a violent power struggle. They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? Because they sense they can win a contest of power, but they might not win a neutral exchange of ideas. There's nothing else to it - it's pure bad-faith power games straight out of 1920's Russia. Of course, it's poisonous to civilization, since it weakens the discussion norms we need to find truth and good paths forward.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. Interesting take. We'll get back to this in a moment. > They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? And yet weirdly you're part of a group hear arguing that we should not call this violence? If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? So long as no punch is thrown, you've been arguing no foul has been committed! If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence, then why are you arguing that you don't want it used against you? Perhaps we should ask our resident 13-dimensional chess player who saw this question coming, jlawson. > But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them. > They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission? And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence used against you and thus granting you a moral right to invoke those very same mechanics.

KirinDave 7y ago

The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position? Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.

jancsika 7y ago
> For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears? OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. > Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent. Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is. > Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument. Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.