
When Is Speech Violence? - jeromebaek
https://daily.jstor.org/wittgenstein-whether-speech-violence/
======
mpweiher
Hmm...how about _never_? It can be an incitement to violence, but unless you
are amplifying it to levels that produce physical harm, it's difficult.

"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"

~~~
mlevental
>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?

~~~
mpweiher
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.

~~~
mlevental
>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.

~~~
mpweiher
> 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime)

~~~
mlevental
>Yes. Semantics, what things mean.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute](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](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/](http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/)

~~~
dang
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

