4 ms·

I would be very interested in hearing some of these words capable of killing. I have only heard of such words in fiction so I am quite surprised to learn they a

by ImJamal 8mo ago

I would be very interested in hearing some of these words capable of killing. I have only heard of such words in fiction so I am quite surprised to learn they are real.

rgblambda 8mo ago
In the 1950s, the Reverend Ian Paisley would organise rallies in the streets of Belfast and when speaking at those rallies, read out the addresses of Catholic homes and businesses on those streets. The crowd would then attack those homes and businesses.
- ImJamal 8mo ago
  I don't know the exact context or what was said, but I know one thing the words didn't attack somebody. People attacked people and property.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rgblambda 8mo ago
    "No officer. I didn't smash the window. It was the bat I was swinging. You should arrest the bat". People were sentenced to death at Nuremberg for giving orders, written and spoken. It's well established in every legal jurisdiction that individuals are responsible for the words they use.
    - ImJamal 8mo ago
      If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible, but like I said I don't know what the context is or what was said in the Belfast situation. The words the Nazis said were irrelevant. They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty. I think someone who goes and attacks somebody is guilty. They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. The words didn't take control of them like a spell. They made the conscious choice to commit violence and as such the guilt is on them, not the bat.
      - rgblambda 8mo ago
        >If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible >They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty. I'm glad we finally reached an agreement that people can and should be held criminally responsible for their words. >They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. Good, though that's not what was being argued. I think you knew that though.
mapontosevenths 8mo ago
We've had several World Wars (so far) thanks largely to words. I'm not sure what your contention really is, except that maybe you dont like the idea of freedom coming with responsibility for the ways in which you use it.
- ImJamal 8mo ago
  Nobody died from the words? Did Hitler say millions should die and millions dropped dead? It was the war, the concentration camps, etc that killed people. Yes, words led to that, but the onus of the deaths are on those who did the killing, not the words. Could the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials have used the excuse that it was actually the words doing the killing and as such they were innocent? If you want to say words kill, in the way you are saying, then words have killed most people that have been killed. If we take an example where somebody gets turned down and then gets killed for it, would you say words killed that person? Should we ban turning people down? You do want words that kill to be banned after all. I'm reminded of a phrase I leaned as a kid that starts with sticks and stones...
  - mapontosevenths 8mo ago
    Ahhh. Another of Elon's absolutists? Fine all words are ok now. So we make all these things legal: Obscenity in any context - Won't someone not think of the children? Child sexual abuse material - Fine in the new regime as long as you didn't record it yourself, right? Incitement to imminent lawless action - You only told them who to murder, right? True threats and harassment - All those people can just die. Speech is the ONLY freedom that matters. Serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence be damned. Fighting words - Sure - Bait them till they hit you then the cops can come arrest THEM. Aren't you clever! And totally free from consequences for your actions! Ideal! Defamation - Why CAN'T we just make stuff up about our enemies, friends, and loved ones? Those suckers rights are far less important than ours after all! Fraud and false commercial speech - All legal now! Finally the freedom to rip off old ladies and the mentally unwell! Thank god for liberty! IP violations - Again, free speech is absolute now so nobody can own anything that can be conveyed via language. Yay! Or... we could just be reasonable about it and say that the limit's of free speech are where they start to impinge on other peoples liberties. Your call.

by ImJamal 8mo ago

I would be very interested in hearing some of these words capable of killing. I have only heard of such words in fiction so I am quite surprised to learn they are real.

rgblambda 8mo ago

In the 1950s, the Reverend Ian Paisley would organise rallies in the streets of Belfast and when speaking at those rallies, read out the addresses of Catholic homes and businesses on those streets. The crowd would then attack those homes and businesses.

ImJamal 8mo ago
I don't know the exact context or what was said, but I know one thing the words didn't attack somebody. People attacked people and property.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- rgblambda 8mo ago
  "No officer. I didn't smash the window. It was the bat I was swinging. You should arrest the bat". People were sentenced to death at Nuremberg for giving orders, written and spoken. It's well established in every legal jurisdiction that individuals are responsible for the words they use.
  - ImJamal 8mo ago
    If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible, but like I said I don't know what the context is or what was said in the Belfast situation. The words the Nazis said were irrelevant. They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty. I think someone who goes and attacks somebody is guilty. They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. The words didn't take control of them like a spell. They made the conscious choice to commit violence and as such the guilt is on them, not the bat.
    - rgblambda 8mo ago
      >If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible >They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty. I'm glad we finally reached an agreement that people can and should be held criminally responsible for their words. >They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. Good, though that's not what was being argued. I think you knew that though.

mapontosevenths 8mo ago

We've had several World Wars (so far) thanks largely to words. I'm not sure what your contention really is, except that maybe you dont like the idea of freedom coming with responsibility for the ways in which you use it.

ImJamal 8mo ago
Nobody died from the words? Did Hitler say millions should die and millions dropped dead? It was the war, the concentration camps, etc that killed people. Yes, words led to that, but the onus of the deaths are on those who did the killing, not the words. Could the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials have used the excuse that it was actually the words doing the killing and as such they were innocent? If you want to say words kill, in the way you are saying, then words have killed most people that have been killed. If we take an example where somebody gets turned down and then gets killed for it, would you say words killed that person? Should we ban turning people down? You do want words that kill to be banned after all. I'm reminded of a phrase I leaned as a kid that starts with sticks and stones...
- mapontosevenths 8mo ago
  Ahhh. Another of Elon's absolutists? Fine all words are ok now. So we make all these things legal: Obscenity in any context - Won't someone not think of the children? Child sexual abuse material - Fine in the new regime as long as you didn't record it yourself, right? Incitement to imminent lawless action - You only told them who to murder, right? True threats and harassment - All those people can just die. Speech is the ONLY freedom that matters. Serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence be damned. Fighting words - Sure - Bait them till they hit you then the cops can come arrest THEM. Aren't you clever! And totally free from consequences for your actions! Ideal! Defamation - Why CAN'T we just make stuff up about our enemies, friends, and loved ones? Those suckers rights are far less important than ours after all! Fraud and false commercial speech - All legal now! Finally the freedom to rip off old ladies and the mentally unwell! Thank god for liberty! IP violations - Again, free speech is absolute now so nobody can own anything that can be conveyed via language. Yay! Or... we could just be reasonable about it and say that the limit's of free speech are where they start to impinge on other peoples liberties. Your call.