4 ms·
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigge
by PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I don't know if this is true all the time. I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. I think knowingly trying to trigger someone into an eating disorder relapse or coercing someone into suicide are heinous things that fall into violence. I think there is a line where speech can be violent or said with the intent to harm someone the same as a punch is.
- CamperBob2 4y agoI think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior Compared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim. That said, specific threats aren't normally examples of protected speech. Extreme cases make bad law.
- Ztynovovk 4y ago[dead]
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoI also agree extreme cases make bad law. That's why I'm disagreeing with the extreme that there are no exceptions to the notion of speech not being violent.
- CamperBob2 4y agoI think we have to be careful not to put words in each others' mouths here. To be clear, I am not saying that specific, credible threats of violence should be treated as "speech" in the First Amendment sense. In my view, the status quo, where most speech is fair game until it rises to the level of coercive threats, is about right.
- robertlagrant 4y agoThings can be bad without being violent. I don't understand this widespread push to try and erase the difference between non-violent bad things and violent bad things.
- anigbrowl 4y agoCompared to the actual act of rape? No. That kind of thinking just devalues the victim. Numerous rape victims have objected to subsequent threats of additional rape, and would probably not take kindly to your inference that they're somehow devaluing themselves. You commented above that you think many participants in this debate lack experience of physical violence, and to be frank I am inclined to wonder the same of you in this instance.
- giantg2 4y agoThose would be intentional (a differentiation the article makes) threats. These fall under terroristic threats. They are not violent themself, but they are threats of violence which are not legal.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoThe poster I'm responding to disagrees with the differentiation of the article. I'm trying to affirm the differentiation with examples.
- MarcoZavala 4y ago[dead]
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago> I think knowingly sending rape threats to rape victims is pretty violent behavior. This is correct, also because such speech is quite often a precursor to actual violence. View it as more than a thing in isolation, without consequence. In a political context, violent rhetoric about a particular group of people is predictably followed by actual violence towards members of that group. Hate speech is very much a part of hate crimes. They're not separable.
- rmah 4y agoReprehensible? Disgusting? Vile? Yes, definitely. Violent? No, not at all. Is hitting someone who is trying to hurt a loved to try to get them to stop violent? Yes, 100%. Is it morally justified, even good? Again yes (IMO). I don't understand this need to try to redefine words. While language certainly evolves, this sort of redefinition just feels different to me somehow.
- fourseventy 4y agoViolent - adjective - using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Definitions of words matter.