When Is Speech Violence?(daily.jstor.org)
daily.jstor.org
When Is Speech Violence?
https://daily.jstor.org/wittgenstein-whether-speech-violence/
1 comments
>never
first of all you're equivocating about the difference between violence and harm but that aside you seem very certain soft (volume) speech can't harm. okay then you should be fine with this experiment (and confident about its result): let me put you into a room and have people come in for 8 hours a day and call you stupid, ugly, worthless, a disappointment, etc. in perfectly mild tones for exactly one month. we'll perform a mood/outlook/mental health assessment before and after. do you think there will be a difference in the two assessments?
first of all you're equivocating about the difference between violence and harm but that aside you seem very certain soft (volume) speech can't harm. okay then you should be fine with this experiment (and confident about its result): let me put you into a room and have people come in for 8 hours a day and call you stupid, ugly, worthless, a disappointment, etc. in perfectly mild tones for exactly one month. we'll perform a mood/outlook/mental health assessment before and after. do you think there will be a difference in the two assessments?
Well, I can just leave, can't I?
If I can't, lets compare the results of this experiment with being incarcerated for a month without those people.
But that doesn't really matter.
> mood/outlook/mental health assessment
We were talking about violence.
> perfectly mild tones for exactly one month.
You are saying I can be harmed without violence happening. That is exactly my point. Harm != violence. There can be violence without harm and harm without violence.
If I can't, lets compare the results of this experiment with being incarcerated for a month without those people.
But that doesn't really matter.
> mood/outlook/mental health assessment
We were talking about violence.
> perfectly mild tones for exactly one month.
You are saying I can be harmed without violence happening. That is exactly my point. Harm != violence. There can be violence without harm and harm without violence.
>If I can't, lets compare the results of this experiment with being incarcerated for a month without those people.
yes lets. are you suggesting that the results still wouldn't be markedly different?
>We were talking about violence.
you're arguing semantics. what is the substantive difference between violence and intentional harm sans physical force? which propositional relations in the universe of such relations (re personhood, health, agency) are sensitive to whether there is physical force involved? you're being pedantic - analogously i could argue that incarceration isn't violence either because the bars of the cage don't apply any force on the person.
yes lets. are you suggesting that the results still wouldn't be markedly different?
>We were talking about violence.
you're arguing semantics. what is the substantive difference between violence and intentional harm sans physical force? which propositional relations in the universe of such relations (re personhood, health, agency) are sensitive to whether there is physical force involved? you're being pedantic - analogously i could argue that incarceration isn't violence either because the bars of the cage don't apply any force on the person.
> you're arguing semantics.
Yes. Semantics, what things mean. This is important, because without semantics we just utter meaningless syntax, and those colorless green ideas sleep furiously[1].
For example, by saying that whether actual violence is involved doesn't matter, you've just erased a complete section of criminal justice codes.[2] These distinctions matter. Materially.
And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration, it sometimes follows violence, but it can also follow non-violent crime. There can also be violence in incarceration, but there can also not be violence, and if you resist incarceration there can also be violence in order to enforce incarceration.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_fu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
Yes. Semantics, what things mean. This is important, because without semantics we just utter meaningless syntax, and those colorless green ideas sleep furiously[1].
For example, by saying that whether actual violence is involved doesn't matter, you've just erased a complete section of criminal justice codes.[2] These distinctions matter. Materially.
And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration, it sometimes follows violence, but it can also follow non-violent crime. There can also be violence in incarceration, but there can also not be violence, and if you resist incarceration there can also be violence in order to enforce incarceration.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_fu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
>Yes. Semantics, what things mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
what this expression means is that you're arguing about the definition of the words rather than the facts that those words represent. again: this isn't a debate about the meaning of `violence` or `harm`. it's a debate about whether speech can physically affect people in negative ways.
>These distinctions matter. Materially.
i challenged you already: show me one sentence whose truth value is altered when `violence` is substituted with `intentional physical harm` (note the absence of physical force).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
lol...
"A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which an offender or perpetrator uses or threatens to use force upon a victim."
>And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration,
alright clearly you don't understand how to actually have discourse; hint it's a bit different from arithmetic. and just in case you still aren't sure then you can enlighten yourself by reading this http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
what this expression means is that you're arguing about the definition of the words rather than the facts that those words represent. again: this isn't a debate about the meaning of `violence` or `harm`. it's a debate about whether speech can physically affect people in negative ways.
>These distinctions matter. Materially.
i challenged you already: show me one sentence whose truth value is altered when `violence` is substituted with `intentional physical harm` (note the absence of physical force).
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
lol...
"A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which an offender or perpetrator uses or threatens to use force upon a victim."
>And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration,
alright clearly you don't understand how to actually have discourse; hint it's a bit different from arithmetic. and just in case you still aren't sure then you can enlighten yourself by reading this http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/
This brawl started in another thread and spilled over here, and somehow everyone involved has been unable to contain themselves from being personally aggressive. Being nasty like this is not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong you think someone is. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly.
This goes for all three of you (but I already scolded the other two in the other thread). Maybe you don't owe better to each other, but you definitely owe better to this community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This goes for all three of you (but I already scolded the other two in the other thread). Maybe you don't owe better to each other, but you definitely owe better to this community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"The idea that anything that causes harm is violence is downright silly"
When something is "silly", this is an important sensation you should grasp at, not dismiss, because silliness is nothing but a reveal of your innermost biases.
Furthermore you are setting up a straw man. The article does not say: "speech causes harm, if x causes harm, x is violence, therefore speech is violence", which is what you seem to be arguing. Violence, obviously, is meaningless unless there is some person behind the violent act. This is why your silly sentence "bananas are literally violence" is incoherent: you are confusing an act, a verb (speech) with a thing, a noun (banana).
When something is "silly", this is an important sensation you should grasp at, not dismiss, because silliness is nothing but a reveal of your innermost biases.
Furthermore you are setting up a straw man. The article does not say: "speech causes harm, if x causes harm, x is violence, therefore speech is violence", which is what you seem to be arguing. Violence, obviously, is meaningless unless there is some person behind the violent act. This is why your silly sentence "bananas are literally violence" is incoherent: you are confusing an act, a verb (speech) with a thing, a noun (banana).
[deleted]
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
The idea that anything that causes harm is violence is downright silly, the linguistic gymnastics of TFA notwithstanding. Aging causes harm. The sun causes harm. Slipping on a Banana peel causes harm. "Bananas are literally violence"