6 ms·
An old tactic to discredit an opponent and suppress norms of free speech. It goes like this: "Thing that is not violence is violence." Voilà. You wouldn't
by MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
An old tactic to discredit an opponent and suppress norms of free speech. It goes like this:
"Thing that is not violence is violence."
Voilà. You wouldn't want to endorse violence, would you?
- Eisenstein 4y agoExcept many people would contend that words can be used violently. For instance the crime of 'assault' requires no physical contact -- you can assault someone by making them fear that you will batter them by using words. I would think of a better argument.
- mbg721 4y agoThe politicians who want to ban specific words for being violent are the same people who want to ban guns for being violent, and it doesn't effectively address the problem in either case.
- iinnPP 4y agoPeople who are good at hurting you with words do not use words like the ones in the list. Also, the assault example may be valid in your jurisdiction, but in mine it isn't assault but threats of violence. additionally, the threat must be made in a way that is threatening. Your example, using my local laws, doesn't make sense.
- Eisenstein 4y agoI never said anything about the list, I said your argument could be better. I really wish people would address the content of a discussion instead of what they want to be discussing. I don't know what laws you are talking about because do not define them, nor your locality. Regardless, there is a 'for instance' in my reply, and you addressed that specific notion instead of the core.
- LegitShady 4y agoyour argument make me fear that you will batter me with words. please stop using it.
- Eisenstein 4y agoDo you find this kind of technique results in compelling discourse? I don't. Do you want conversations to proceed in fashion where someone makes a point that is grounded in reality and asks a question (at what point does violence not require physical action?) and in reply gets a dishonest quip that does not address the question but seeks to trivialize it?
- slingnow 4y agoI don't take their comment as dishonest at all. I take their claim at face value, as you should. It isn't fair to immediately discredit someone when they express a fear of your words becoming ever more violent. I think you should look inward and ask yourself how you can do better with your discourse in the future.
- Eisenstein 4y agoAh yes, you make complete sense. Forgive me for not realizing that when wading into a comment thread on a submission that is baiting the anti-woke crew to vent that I would be dealing with this. Should have known better.
- LegitShady 4y agoI didn't design these weapons against critical thinking, I just use them against the people who advocate for them so that we're all on the same level. Your violent words scare me and I think you should self censor your aggression so that others can feel safe. don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
- slothtrop 4y agoHurting someone's feelings is not contingent on the specificity of words. It's contingent on insulting them, belittling them, etc. And that still is not violence. Words have meaning.
- narrator 4y agoThe broader tactic is redefining the meaning of words to claim the moral high ground in a debate. They steal the entire intellectual history of a concept by just redefining it to support their argument.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
- TeMPOraL 4y agoYou know what's terrifying? I've seen the first line of this quote used straight, by otherwise seemingly intelligent people, to shut down someone who rightfully pointed they're being manipulative with words. Yes, language is evolving, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. But the idea that you can use words in whichever way you want, and any misunderstanding is the listener's problem, is just shitting at the idea of communication, and nothing but a thinly veiled power grab.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y agoPeople are slowly coming to the realisation that there is no "open dialogue", no "marketplace of ideas". You've been had. The reality is that when you're in power, you can use words in whichever way you want. This is what power means. Only now has is become so obvious that people can't help but notice.
- rajin444 4y agoThe marketplace of ideas is a nobel and ideal state. However, its weakness shows in a low trust culture - those like Kendi will exploit it to initially be heard then discard it once they’re in power. Without strict controls over who is and isn’t allowed in our culture we’re left with a “at your feet or at your throat” predicament. Subversive individuals are death to a culture (the thing Popper was referring to in the paradox of tolerance - you have to draw the line at life or death, not simply because you disagree). Trust is everything.