>Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world n

>Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder. I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone. I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions. >In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit [threats against life and limb] built-in. Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.