4 ms·
> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an actio
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression»
Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.)
> what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force
Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal.
There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical.
> I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech».
On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
- ilikehurdles 1y agoOrwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoNope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical. > Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology. This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
- schoen 1y agoUsing speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility. In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something). All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoI'm arguing a cultural perspective. Edit: Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.
- schoen 1y agoI see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence. To me, the judge's "job" you mention is part of that. This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence. I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can understand the dangers of speech without minimizing and dismissing them.
- redbar0n 1y agoThe fact that the Wikipedia page on «verbal abuse» has to use «verbal» as a prefix term to the terms «abuse», «violence», «assault» etc. actually underscores the point: If those terms were obviously verbal in nature, then «verbal» wouldn’t have been needed as a prefix to them.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoSo if I say "physical abuse" is it because abuse is presumed non-physical? Obviously not; I am simply being specific.
- redbar0n 1y agoI am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences. There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. Sure, I agree, and can see that this is possible. You made this exact distinction between "saying something" and "physical force" without even using the word violence. This is clearly not a problem.