6 ms·

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other neg

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

MiroF 6y ago
> removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. "I order you to kill this person." Just a combination of words, and yet.... I think there is a continuum between this and non-violent+non-inciting speech and your comment does little to tangle with the difference.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.
    - Stupulous 6y ago
      The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a national newspaper calling for a Holocaust and Germany had done it on that basis, the whole of the blame would fall on Germany, who took the action, and not Hitler, who wrote an editorial.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > They cruelly punished disobedience. And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech.
        MiroF 6y ago
        > the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part. If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine. I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. No you're not, you're using violence. The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. If there was no expectation on the part of the recipient of any negative consequences from not following your order, the order itself wouldn't cause them to do it and there would be no harm. Compare the scenario where you threaten to kill someone if they don't kill someone else while enacting a play. The threat of violence isn't really there, even though the words are identical. Clearly the words aren't the source of the crime.
        MiroF 6y ago
        > The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible? It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces.
  - scarecrowbob 6y ago
    Consider the level of crimes that must take place for that defense to come into play, much less the additional levels of magnitude before it ceases to be an actual defense. In our average, every-day life, it's quite possible to illegitimately harm people and escape retribution by using "I was just following orders" as a defense.
    - Stupulous 6y ago
      Escape retribution perhaps, but not responsibility. If your boss tells you to put a dark pattern in the sign-up page to get more personal data, you don't have to do it. If you do, you are putting getting paid ahead of doing the right thing. If someone points out that you did the wrong thing for selfish reasons, they are right, and "I was just doing what I was told" is no defense.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        It's not automatically selfish. It's not selfish if you have a stronger need to keep the job for a non-selfish reason, and therefore you need to keep a good enough working relationship with the boss, by doing what they ask. An example of a non-selfish reason to keep the job anyway would be you having a job being essential to the wellbeing of people you care for. Food, shelter, medicine etc. In some situations, someone might die if you refuse to do as told at work, because your income and benefits are paying for their surgery or something. There's going to be a ethical line beyond which "no" is the right answer, but for many people "put a dark pattern in the sign-up page" doesn't cross the line into selfishness, it only crosses into an ethical dilemma, a balancing act.
jacobush 6y ago
Sorry but I'm so tired of that phrase. We are social beings. Words have killed many people, and I don't even mean genocide or immoral orders. I mean through depression, suicide and so on.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
There's an analogy to campaign reform. Individuals can choose to bribe politicians, and the politicians can choose to accept the cash and otherwise not modify their voting behaviour. Yet in the real world we can see what Citizend United actualy did.
- unishark 6y ago
  Technically it remains illegal to bribe politicians. More of them get busted every year. Citizens United was about campaigning for them independently. Something that was already legal for individuals to do. I agree second order effects are a problem, but this is widespread in govt (e.g. they buy votes with some narrowly-defined program like govt employee pensions or local pork spending). Maybe the problem is that the power and wealth that comes with being elected is too attractive, and is what we need to somehow fix.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I actually think that words can hurt plenty, bullying can drive people to suicide or indeed bring them to commit terrorist acts. But I don't want to censor the internet. There are 1.3m death from traffic accidents and 0 deaths from Twitter.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > bullying can drive people to suicide or indeed bring them to commit terrorist acts. You think bullying on twitter has caused 0 deaths?
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    If we're talking about only the contents of twitter.com and not harassment that extends into real life and just happens to also happen on twitter? I'll take that bet.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      I think you drastically underestimate stochasticity, the sheer number of people on twitter, and how actions at the margin can drive someone over a precipe.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        I do think that more people were saved from suicide by having a community where they could just speak freely. That wouldn't necessarily be Twitter though.
        MiroF 6y ago
        The proliferation of online platforms where you can speak freely would explain the declining suicide rates we're seeing in the 21st century.
        raxxorrax 6y ago
ben_w 6y ago
Reminds me of a scene from a trailer: A: “You just killed him!” B: “I didn’t kill him, the bullets and the fall killed him.” Me? I don’t have any easy answers. The reason I value freedom of speech is the exact same reason I consider it dangerous: that it can effect change. > blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react How many people grok — really grok — that they have a choice to not react to their feelings? How many can really go against the tide of a mob when inside one? Can you genuinely compensate for the availability heuristic, or any of the other cognitive biases that a skilled propagandist knows how to manipulate?
jonplackett 6y ago
Words can't hurt directly, in that exact moment, but the consequences of them sure can. There has to be a line doesn't there? Is outright racism, or encouraging others to kill or do other bad things OK, because it's just words?
- mythrwy 6y ago
  There's a pretty clear line at incitement to violence.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Absolutely not. There's loads of stuff that makes it into mass shooter manifestoes that has clearly been part of inciting them to violence, but can't be cleanly traced back to a specific individual telling them to pull the trigger. Have a look at the subject of "stochastic terrorism".
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      You are on the slope. The slippery slope.
      - jonplackett 6y ago
        Weeeee! Sooo sliperyyyyyyyyyyyy.....
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > the consequences of them “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)
watwut 6y ago
> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Honestly, that phrase is just a way adults explain bullying victims that they should shut up and that adults actually dont know what to do. Or dont care. I don't mean to say that this or that words should be illegal. But, ignoring verbal bullying never ever made it go away. You gotta respond, really and for that you need to acknowledge to yourself that harm is going on. > Words are just words. You can use words to destroy people. You can lie about people and harm their reputation. You can do it in their presence and still cause plenty of problems in their work or life or relationships. If you live in autocratic regime, you can "tell on them". Or, domestic violence victims do sometimes say that the insults and humiliations were worst then actual violent events. > One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. Not saying speach should be illegal, but if you go out of way to convince people that they should be violent, yes you have moral responsibility and share quilt for their actions. This expression feels good and sounds smart. But, it is not how real world works which is the reason many people are rejecting that argument.
nindalf 6y ago
By this logic, Osama bin Laden did nothing wrong. Sure he inspired young men to join the movement, he gave them direct orders to perform acts of terrorism ... but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. > One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence At least you acknowledge that words can lead to violence. If such violence occurs, we will certainly blame both the perpetrator and the person who incited them. But the most effective way of stopping such violence isn't catching perpetrators after the fact, it's preventing the incitement in the first place.
claudiawerner 6y ago
> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Since this was even uttered by a judge, there's been a lot of discussion as to why this is neither absolute, nor nearly as clear cut, nor does it speak for everyone. Words hurt me (and they likely hurt you too), but the question is not only of hurt but actual harms. The idea that words categorically cannot be harms in themselves rests upon a foundation supported neither by materialist philosophy, nor by what we know of human biology[0]. >Words are just words In a similar way, aren't actions just actions? Why stop at words? There is no fundamental metaphysical difference between expression and other actions. [0] http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindbody_problem_in_first_amendment_jurisprudence.pdf http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...
jlokier 6y ago
Words can cause trauma. A lasting, debilitating effect. Even changes to brain structure (PTSD etc) and long term disability. I regard that as a harm. Note that "cause harm" does not always imply "blame". It does imply cause and effect though, suggesting "responsibility".
- thowaosab 6y ago
  Sources please?
  - Cro_on 6y ago
    I'm guessing you believe that domestic abuse is primarily a physical act?
    - johnisgood 6y ago
      Perhaps we could make an exception for child abuse... but adults are supposed to be able to deal with insults in a healthy way, I think. It would be beneficial for them, and perhaps us all.
- future_unclear 6y ago
  Words cannot cause trauma. The mind engages with words in such a way that leads to trauma.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    The question is about an ordinary meaning of "harm". If you want to push back at that meaning on a technicality, is there anything called harm that is not, ultimately, dependent on how a mind engages with it?

MiroF 6y ago

> removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. "I order you to kill this person." Just a combination of words, and yet.... I think there is a continuum between this and non-violent+non-inciting speech and your comment does little to tangle with the difference.

Stupulous 6y ago
"I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.
  - Stupulous 6y ago
    The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a national newspaper calling for a Holocaust and Germany had done it on that basis, the whole of the blame would fall on Germany, who took the action, and not Hitler, who wrote an editorial.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > They cruelly punished disobedience. And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        > the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part. If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine. I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. No you're not, you're using violence. The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. If there was no expectation on the part of the recipient of any negative consequences from not following your order, the order itself wouldn't cause them to do it and there would be no harm. Compare the scenario where you threaten to kill someone if they don't kill someone else while enacting a play. The threat of violence isn't really there, even though the words are identical. Clearly the words aren't the source of the crime.
        MiroF 6y ago
        > The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible? It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces.
- scarecrowbob 6y ago
  Consider the level of crimes that must take place for that defense to come into play, much less the additional levels of magnitude before it ceases to be an actual defense. In our average, every-day life, it's quite possible to illegitimately harm people and escape retribution by using "I was just following orders" as a defense.
  - Stupulous 6y ago
    Escape retribution perhaps, but not responsibility. If your boss tells you to put a dark pattern in the sign-up page to get more personal data, you don't have to do it. If you do, you are putting getting paid ahead of doing the right thing. If someone points out that you did the wrong thing for selfish reasons, they are right, and "I was just doing what I was told" is no defense.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      It's not automatically selfish. It's not selfish if you have a stronger need to keep the job for a non-selfish reason, and therefore you need to keep a good enough working relationship with the boss, by doing what they ask. An example of a non-selfish reason to keep the job anyway would be you having a job being essential to the wellbeing of people you care for. Food, shelter, medicine etc. In some situations, someone might die if you refuse to do as told at work, because your income and benefits are paying for their surgery or something. There's going to be a ethical line beyond which "no" is the right answer, but for many people "put a dark pattern in the sign-up page" doesn't cross the line into selfishness, it only crosses into an ethical dilemma, a balancing act.

jacobush 6y ago

Sorry but I'm so tired of that phrase. We are social beings. Words have killed many people, and I don't even mean genocide or immoral orders. I mean through depression, suicide and so on.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

There's an analogy to campaign reform. Individuals can choose to bribe politicians, and the politicians can choose to accept the cash and otherwise not modify their voting behaviour. Yet in the real world we can see what Citizend United actualy did.

unishark 6y ago
Technically it remains illegal to bribe politicians. More of them get busted every year. Citizens United was about campaigning for them independently. Something that was already legal for individuals to do. I agree second order effects are a problem, but this is widespread in govt (e.g. they buy votes with some narrowly-defined program like govt employee pensions or local pork spending). Maybe the problem is that the power and wealth that comes with being elected is too attractive, and is what we need to somehow fix.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I actually think that words can hurt plenty, bullying can drive people to suicide or indeed bring them to commit terrorist acts. But I don't want to censor the internet. There are 1.3m death from traffic accidents and 0 deaths from Twitter.

MiroF 6y ago
> bullying can drive people to suicide or indeed bring them to commit terrorist acts. You think bullying on twitter has caused 0 deaths?
- Karunamon 6y ago
  If we're talking about only the contents of twitter.com and not harassment that extends into real life and just happens to also happen on twitter? I'll take that bet.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    I think you drastically underestimate stochasticity, the sheer number of people on twitter, and how actions at the margin can drive someone over a precipe.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      I do think that more people were saved from suicide by having a community where they could just speak freely. That wouldn't necessarily be Twitter though.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        The proliferation of online platforms where you can speak freely would explain the declining suicide rates we're seeing in the 21st century.
        raxxorrax 6y ago

ben_w 6y ago

Reminds me of a scene from a trailer: A: “You just killed him!” B: “I didn’t kill him, the bullets and the fall killed him.” Me? I don’t have any easy answers. The reason I value freedom of speech is the exact same reason I consider it dangerous: that it can effect change. > blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react How many people grok — really grok — that they have a choice to not react to their feelings? How many can really go against the tide of a mob when inside one? Can you genuinely compensate for the availability heuristic, or any of the other cognitive biases that a skilled propagandist knows how to manipulate?

jonplackett 6y ago

Words can't hurt directly, in that exact moment, but the consequences of them sure can. There has to be a line doesn't there? Is outright racism, or encouraging others to kill or do other bad things OK, because it's just words?

mythrwy 6y ago
There's a pretty clear line at incitement to violence.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Absolutely not. There's loads of stuff that makes it into mass shooter manifestoes that has clearly been part of inciting them to violence, but can't be cleanly traced back to a specific individual telling them to pull the trigger. Have a look at the subject of "stochastic terrorism".
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    You are on the slope. The slippery slope.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      Weeeee! Sooo sliperyyyyyyyyyyyy.....
commandlinefan 6y ago
> the consequences of them “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)

watwut 6y ago

> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Honestly, that phrase is just a way adults explain bullying victims that they should shut up and that adults actually dont know what to do. Or dont care. I don't mean to say that this or that words should be illegal. But, ignoring verbal bullying never ever made it go away. You gotta respond, really and for that you need to acknowledge to yourself that harm is going on. > Words are just words. You can use words to destroy people. You can lie about people and harm their reputation. You can do it in their presence and still cause plenty of problems in their work or life or relationships. If you live in autocratic regime, you can "tell on them". Or, domestic violence victims do sometimes say that the insults and humiliations were worst then actual violent events. > One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. Not saying speach should be illegal, but if you go out of way to convince people that they should be violent, yes you have moral responsibility and share quilt for their actions. This expression feels good and sounds smart. But, it is not how real world works which is the reason many people are rejecting that argument.

nindalf 6y ago

By this logic, Osama bin Laden did nothing wrong. Sure he inspired young men to join the movement, he gave them direct orders to perform acts of terrorism ... but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. > One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence At least you acknowledge that words can lead to violence. If such violence occurs, we will certainly blame both the perpetrator and the person who incited them. But the most effective way of stopping such violence isn't catching perpetrators after the fact, it's preventing the incitement in the first place.

claudiawerner 6y ago

> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Since this was even uttered by a judge, there's been a lot of discussion as to why this is neither absolute, nor nearly as clear cut, nor does it speak for everyone. Words hurt me (and they likely hurt you too), but the question is not only of hurt but actual harms. The idea that words categorically cannot be harms in themselves rests upon a foundation supported neither by materialist philosophy, nor by what we know of human biology[0]. >Words are just words In a similar way, aren't actions just actions? Why stop at words? There is no fundamental metaphysical difference between expression and other actions. [0] http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindbody_problem_in_first_amendment_jurisprudence.pdf http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...

jlokier 6y ago

Words can cause trauma. A lasting, debilitating effect. Even changes to brain structure (PTSD etc) and long term disability. I regard that as a harm. Note that "cause harm" does not always imply "blame". It does imply cause and effect though, suggesting "responsibility".

thowaosab 6y ago
Sources please?
- Cro_on 6y ago
  I'm guessing you believe that domestic abuse is primarily a physical act?
  - johnisgood 6y ago
    Perhaps we could make an exception for child abuse... but adults are supposed to be able to deal with insults in a healthy way, I think. It would be beneficial for them, and perhaps us all.
future_unclear 6y ago
Words cannot cause trauma. The mind engages with words in such a way that leads to trauma.
- jlokier 6y ago
  The question is about an ordinary meaning of "harm". If you want to push back at that meaning on a technicality, is there anything called harm that is not, ultimately, dependent on how a mind engages with it?