3 ms·

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 nons

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.
- camelite 7y ago
  > And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.
    - camelite 7y ago
      > You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Add? Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence. > Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Cute, but no deal. > Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically. The article was on the front page when I clicked it. You last comment was about three hours old when I commented.
- jlawson 7y ago
  > If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? ..... If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence You seem to have the idea that any act/speech which isn't literally violence must thus be trivial/acceptable/unobjectionable. Do I even need to explain why this is wrong? Obviously there are many acts which are unacceptable and objectionable, which are not violent. E.g. If you called my boss and made up lies about me being a pedophile to try to get me fired. I can kind of sense that you're trapped in your own definitional games here. Since you've so long equated "any objectionable thing" with "violence", you are now having trouble following a text that depends on the difference. By erasing these language distinctions, you've actually been conditioned to be unable to follow the reasoning that would make you understand why they're wrong. I just have to ask you to step back for a moment, consider my example above about the pedophilia lies, and try to remember the distinctions that you were surely once familiar with. Violence is an objectionable thing; not every objectionable thing is violence.

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.

camelite 7y ago
> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.
  - camelite 7y ago
    > You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Add? Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence. > Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Cute, but no deal. > Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically. The article was on the front page when I clicked it. You last comment was about three hours old when I commented.
jlawson 7y ago
> If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? ..... If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence You seem to have the idea that any act/speech which isn't literally violence must thus be trivial/acceptable/unobjectionable. Do I even need to explain why this is wrong? Obviously there are many acts which are unacceptable and objectionable, which are not violent. E.g. If you called my boss and made up lies about me being a pedophile to try to get me fired. I can kind of sense that you're trapped in your own definitional games here. Since you've so long equated "any objectionable thing" with "violence", you are now having trouble following a text that depends on the difference. By erasing these language distinctions, you've actually been conditioned to be unable to follow the reasoning that would make you understand why they're wrong. I just have to ask you to step back for a moment, consider my example above about the pedophilia lies, and try to remember the distinctions that you were surely once familiar with. Violence is an objectionable thing; not every objectionable thing is violence.