Tyranny of the Listener

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You're the one saying words and thoughts are made up of the same stuff, not me. No double standard.

But you have not proven that thoughts can interact with matter any more than words so, applying the logic to one and not the other is a double standard on your part.

Can you tell me how it is that thoughts actually cause knives to slash and guns to fire? Are we talking Jedi thoughts here?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes, a country has a right to govern their country as they wish. I'm not aware of Switzerland's speech laws, however.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Cheers ....i was looking for a little perspective on your thoughts....

Good OP by the way ....

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You're the one saying words and thoughts are made up of the same stuff, not me. No double standard.

But you have not proven that thoughts can interact with matter any more than words so applying the logic to one and not the other is a double standard on your part.

Can you tell me how it is that thoughts actually cause knives to slash and guns to fire? Are we talking Jedi thoughts here?

If by thoughts you mean brain activity, yes the brain affects the body, just like speaking affects the air. If by thoughts you mean something non-physical, then we're not speaking about the same thing, mainly because you'd be speaking about nothing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If by thoughts you mean brain activity, yes the brain affects the body, just like speaking affects the air. If by thoughts you mean something non-physical, then we're not speaking about the same thing, mainly because you'd be speaking about nothing.

Pot meet kettle?

So we are 2 for 2.

Brain activity is influenced by stimuli which includes words. Making people think that words are neutral is no different than making them think that some words are bad.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I do think, however, that an education that strengthens the ability to overcome one's own emotions and thought is more conducive to human rights than restricting or censoring speech.

I think this is really the crux of the matter- not so much what is true (because truth can have different facets to it, depending upon where you stand) but more about what is a more beneficial facet to project, considering the current environment and state of things/people.

The message that words have no power can be abused by some as much as the one that says words have power.

Learning to think philosophically is about the only real solution I have ever heard. Philosophy should be required in high school (and perhaps before). It teaches one to do gymnastics with the mind so that they are capable of catching an idea, holding it temporarily, looking at it from various angles critically, then let it go again, to return to your own idea, if you so choose.


The biggest problem I find in society with regards to this is the difficulty in doing that. The reason people so often do not want to attempt to understand an idea or a person, because they know it puts them at risk of being "infected", or drawn in, and unable to return to their previous stance. This is what makes it necessary for them to shut others down.

Part of the importance I recognize in what you are saying is that when we have effectively conceptualized our own idea, we are less vulnerable to the influence of others. We are stronger, we find it easier to listen and still feel separate.
It is often through the usage of words that we are able to do that work of conceptualization. So it is important to support and encourage.

I think that the context of where we do that work is the important element here.
People are doing that publicly, they are doing it in social media, in public forums, in public gathering places, in a loud and explosive way. They are making a show before they have worked out their script and storyline.

So you get a lot of ill-structured ideas, a lot of emotional button pushing instead of logic and reason, and people standing firm behind those ill formed ideas because well, now it has been broadcast and now they must stick to what they said to save face. They must convince themselves it was a good idea.

I think much of this would be better done early on in life, in a group of peers with a guide, as a rational exploration instead. Like my philo class in high school, where the professor would have us go sit on the lawn under the shade of a tree, lying around comfortably and feeling free to creatively explore thoughts, our own and others'. (Before making our big statements to the world).

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Another fantastic and well put thread.
We had a saying when I was growing up.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me."

The wisdom of these words seams to have been lost on this generation.

If that were actually true, no one would be bullying with words and causing others to feel suicidal.

a reply to: Bluesma

I'm glad you wrote that. You've seen through the sophistry to the philosophy.

I made sure to include Plato's conception of philosopher vs. Sophist, the "Eros", the erotic interest for self-advancement in Sophists, and something that I think is found in those who both try to use words to hurt, and those that are fragile when it comes to words. I call it a superstition, but Plato called it δόξα, which is something like common opinion or indoctrination. It's what we learn through education, and which can be manipulated by sophists and retreated into by the those deceived by them.

The rhetoric of Gorgias did not work on someone like Socrates. Why is Socrates against sophistry, when everyone else is enamoured by it? Why is one person hurt by words when another is not? Early childhood education, the doxa, is I think the missing component. We can indoctrinate people to not be hurt by words, just as we have indoctrinated them to be hurt by them. We can indoctrinate people to be philosophers, just as we have indoctrinated them to be sophists.

This forum and social media in general has many examples of emotionally-driven sophists, those who wish to emotionally manipulate others with words because they themselves are emotionally manipulated by words. There are some examples in this very thread. There is no body language, no shared environment, just reading, so they strain themselves in sophistry to self-advance themselves, with little to no actual effect. They don't want to talk or debate, they want agreement and acceptance. Their "Eros" is in themselves and their own self-advancement, with little care for others or the quality of their community.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away. your personal detachment to the consequence of auditory vibration and written symbols as they pass from author to audience is very ironic considering how often you take it upon yourself to share your opinions with the public. is this a gesture of futility? posting your thoughts only to wash your hands of all intent?

lithub.com...

the above link is an excellent example of how important the simple act of communication is. and in robbing the audience of its power to react, you rob yourself of your power to move them.

originally posted by: Bluesma
So you get a lot of ill-structured ideas, a lot of emotional button pushing instead of logic and reason, and people standing firm behind those ill formed ideas because well, now it has been broadcast and now they must stick to what they said to save face. They must convince themselves it was a good idea.

This thread seems to be a good example of that.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away.

Like leaving a note and walking away.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away.

Like leaving a note and walking away.

sorry, i was elaborating on my point. i dont know how long it takes you to compose a symphony of political and philosophical rhetoric, but it takes me a little while. there is no point in me fencing words with you, because your grasp of language is astounding for your dismissal of the "ripple effect", but i persist because i firmly believe in the power to heal a heart or free a soul with a conversation. that open letter to the american public, the australian who lives across from the gap (a location notorious for suicide jumpers) and has saved a hundred lives by talking...just by talking. have you ever saved a life just by sitting down with someone and convincing them they were worth fighting for?

The words spoken by Derren Brown in this video affected the people walking around in a shopping mall and they weren't even listening.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away.

Like leaving a note and walking away.

sorry, i was elaborating on my point. i dont know how long it takes you to compose a symphony of political and philosophical rhetoric, but it takes me a little while. there is no point in me fencing words with you, because your grasp of language is astounding for your dismissal of the "ripple effect", but i persist because i firmly believe in the power to heal a heart or free a soul with a conversation. that open letter to the american public, the australian who lives across from the gap (a location notorious for suicide jumpers) and has saved a hundred lives by talking...just by talking. have you ever saved a life just by sitting down with someone and convincing them they were worth fighting for?

It takes me a long time.

Of course conversation and the act of conversing can heal. But I think you're fair enough to admit that it is ridiculous to suppose Goethe healed me in times of despair when the man has been dead for hundreds of years, or that words glide through the air like little band aids healing wounds. Yes, it's difficult to realize, and painful to admit, but the physics is all wrong. The words, though strung together by the speaker, is registered, understood, and acted upon by the listener.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What I don't get is that even after accepting:

Your argument that it is foolish not to expect people to react to words is something I agree with. But that's a different issue altogether

OP doesn't see that limits on free speech are addressing that other issue and not saying that the words themselves are pulling triggers or wielding big sticks.

It's so simple. I can accept that words are not physically causing harm but I don't see the point of conflating that with "that other issue". There is no logic in it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TzarChasm

What I don't get is that even after accepting:

Your argument that it is foolish not to expect people to react to words is something I agree with. But that's a different issue altogether

OP doesn't see that limits on free speech are addressing that other issue and not saying that the words themselves are pulling triggers or wielding big sticks.

It's so simple. I can accept that words are not physically causing harm but I don't see the point of conflating that with "that other issue". There is no logic in it.

The point is, why ban words and oppress the speaker when it isn't them causing harm? Plenty of logic in it.

a reply to: daskakik

OP doesn't see that limits on free speech are addressing that other issue and not saying that the words themselves are pulling triggers or wielding big sticks.

It's so simple. I can accept that words are not physically causing harm but I don't see the point of conflating that with "that other issue". There is no logic in it.

He isn't the only one that thinks this way, but he is the author of this thread

It's actually an interesting subject - and I would rather discuss this idea: Are humans separate from their language?

Of course - we aren't. We are our language. Our actions are language, our thoughts - humans exist as humans because of language

If words had no power - banning the speaker would be pointless

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The point is, why ban words and oppress the speaker when it isn't them causing harm? Plenty of logic in it.

And the counter point is that presently people react to words and that can cause the speaker harm. You have already accepted that.

You can say that the listener shouldn't think like that but they are free to think however they like or are you going to limit their freedom to do so?

You even said:

I also agree that people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions, and might react negatively because of them, and that because of them we should be cautious about what we say.

Being cautious about what we say and being forced to be cautious about what we say has the same end and the reason it might even be contemplated is because of the first part of that quote. "people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions" which may lead them to say something the other "people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions" might react negatively to.

Vicious cycle that you can't reason your way out of.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Fascinating - and creepy

:-)