Incitement, and other nonsense.

Beware of those who believe in “incitement”, that words can “stir-up” hatred or violence or animosity in others as if a siren song convinced them to throw themselves into the Aegean sea. It is more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact. They must know from experience.

If the supposed theory is that a piece of racist or bigoted propaganda can incite one to racist and bigoted behaviour, I would hate to see what they themselves can be convinced to do when put into contact with that sort of speech. We should be sure to keep It further out of reach.

But before we throw books to the fire, or toss literature to the censors, we should probably just ask them. Would you be incited to hatred or violence if someone told you to? When the dialect of execration contacts your understanding, are you immediately convinced to hate the subject to which the rhetoric is aimed? Are you cast into a frenzy of animosity and contempt to your fellow human beings when this or that disparaging remark about them hits your ears?

What’s the difference between “incitement” and a magical spell? Very little. Both imply the speaker has the ability to control or influence someone with his words. Both imply that certain combinations of words can alter another’s emotions with a spooky action at a distance.

I am not too certain of this. The evidence is lacking. But presupposing that “hate speech” is a cause of hatred, and not one of its many effects, it is amazing that we human beings, in all our genius, haven’t codified “love speech” or “peace speech” into law in order to balance it all out. Incitement to violence and hatred is illegal, incitement to love and peace should be mandatory. There are downsides to that. Though we might initially cringe when some braggart engages in self-adulation and self-promotion, it is only a matter of time before we are incited to fall madly in love with him.

Speaking of braggarts, they tell us President Trump incites violence. Assuming he has that sort of superpower, isn’t this the kind of person we would want as a leader? Maybe he could incite world peace. Maybe he could incite concern for the environment. Certainly a leader who could incite people to violence could also incite them to civility or some other mode of conduct.

Better than that, any person who can produce such an effect on living breathing human beings with mere words can have some effect, however subtle, on the lower life forms. Let’s get Trump to incite crops to give a higher yield this year. Maybe he could incite endangered animals to produce more. The applications are near endless.

If I haven’t incited you to agreement by this point, I’m not sure my spells will have any further effect. You must be a better sorcerer than I. Truth be told, I don’t really believe that emotions and behaviour can be “incited”, “provoked”, or “stirred up” by words, because to do so would to confuse words with actions, and reality with superstitious nonsense.

- LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your post makes me so mad I just want to hurt someone right now.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I am presently vacationing outside the US.

I just commented on how I have observed numerous people from all over the world vacationing in the same place, none speaking the language of the other, yet having an amazing time communicating with just smiles, kinds acts, dance, sports, and laughter.

If words can persuade people to hate. Smiles, laughter, and kindness can persuade them to love.

Speaking of braggarts, they tell us President Trump incites violence.

That's because Trump haters the irony are incapable of higher reasoning.

They are constantly stuck on the ID complex.

I,I,I,me,me,me, Now,Now,want,want,want.

Instant gratification.

Incite is nothing more than a new tool in the same old tool bag of his critics.

Trying to silence opposition by any means they can.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

SCotUS has already ruled.

And it's called Imminent Lawless action.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.[3]

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Incite with insight.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are just wrong.

You need to sit down and have a conversation with Romeo Dallaire.

I've seen him speak first hand about his experiences with incitement of hatred due to propaganda.

Have you forgotten Rwanda?

There are so many more...

originally posted by: Mikehawk
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are just wrong.

You need to sit down and have a conversation with Romeo Dallaire.

I've seen him speak first hand about his experiences with incitement of hatred due to propaganda.

Have you forgotten Rwanda?

There are so many more...

And totally IGNORE that thing called free will.

Do you know how many times I said something and people like didn't do anything at all ?

a reply to: Mikehawk

Exactly. If we're going to rule out words/language as an impetus for action, I would like a better exploration into alternate theories.

What incites a mob to violence (in particular the most gruesome/horrific lynching type)?

What circumstances exist to allow for a young person to strap him/herself with explosives and randomly detonate in a crowd?

How does a govenment groom its youth to kill or be killed for a cause?

We can start here.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don’t really believe that emotions and behaviour can be “incited”, “provoked”, or “stirred up” by words, because to do so would to confuse words with actions, and reality with superstitious nonsense.

Really? While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree with the above statement completely. Words are our main form of communication, which in turn represent our thoughts and ideas, which in turn proceed action.

I think the issue here is really how someone is influenced by words or not as the case may be. It all depends on a persons social and cultural conditioning, education and lack thereof. And no doubt much more besides...

But are you seriously saying you have never been emotionally touched or provoked into action by an other persons words? What was it that inspired this very thread then?

The Pen is mightier than the Sword remember.

a reply to: zosimov

What incites a mob to violence (in particular the most gruesome/horrific lynching type)?

Already preconceived bias's.

Just looking for any excuse.

Which doesn't take much to begin with.

a reply to: neo96

I'm specifically referring to cases in which the whole town turns out for a lynching.

There is nothing that could bring me out to witness the torture/body of an animal even but we have pictures of a whole town smiling for poses with a burnt dead body.

But I do agree that the first was the weakest argument. How about the other two (suicide bombings for one-- do they originate in a violent interpretation of the q'uran by radicals? or is it simply a lone unrelated thought of an individual nutcase?).

a reply to: neo96

Already preconceived bias's. Just looking for any excuse. Which doesn't take much to begin with.

Perhaps but that is just a small part of it, it generally is much, much more complicated than that. Fear, believe it or not can be a big part of it. Also oppression, it depends on the circumstances but ever heard of the saying "the straw that broke camels back" there is truth in that. Sometimes a seemingly tiny insignificant thing can be all it takes for all hell to brake loose.

a reply to: zosimov

But I do agree that the first was the weakest argument. How about the other two (suicide bombings for one-- do you usually place the blame on the quran? or radical imams? or is it simply the lone thought of an individual nutcase?).

You can't make someone do something they already don't want to do.

And this is especially true when it comes to ideologues.

No I don't blame a book.

I don't blame words.

Self radicalization is something not limited to religion.

It's endemic in the political world.

a reply to: zosimov

Hi zosi.

It's a pretty gray area and tough to answer because it depends on many things.

The culture in which you come from, the environment in which you grow up in, the people you surround yourself with (or lack thereof), and many other nuances that can determine wether you are susceptible to "incitement" from words.

For arguments sake, let's take two people from different cultures and let them both hear a "hate" speech. One became "incited" and one didn't. Does that mean the words are inciting, or the person chose to become incited?

a reply to: surfer_soul

Also oppression, it depends on the circumstances but ever heard of the saying "the straw that broke camels back" there is truth in that. Sometimes a seemingly tiny insignificant thing can be all it takes for all hell to brake loose.

A big part of it is perception.

All politics is about perception. That's based on nothing more than feelings.

Irrational thought.

Rational thought tells a person it's against the law to hurt someone else.

Irrational thought says just because X is mad at Y they have a 'right' to do Z for some instant gratification.

The Super Ego, and the Ego override the ID.

Which is nothing more than primal instinct.

At least that's how I see it.

Words are just words.

Trying to blame inanimate objects is what we see in another political issue. Which is hotly debated.

a reply to: neo96

So you think that terrorists are all self radicalized?
The kids and all?

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: neo96

So you think that terrorists are all self radicalized?
The kids and all?

Most are self radicalized.

Believing what they WANT to believe.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Hi there hunter.

Violence is one thread that seems to run through all sectors of humanity, in all times and conditions.

I agree that the cause is not easy to determine. I do think that we have a core that operates according to its own will (which will manifest in all of our actions and, yes, words).

Interesting to think about anyway. But can't get too deep at work here.

a reply to: zosimov

But I do agree that the first was the weakest argument. How about the other two (suicide bombings for one-- do you usually place the blame on the quran's interpretation by radical imams? or is it simply the lone thought of an individual nutcase?).

Again its not so cut and dry as that. that individual nutcase might have lost family to those they target. They may have been radicalized by a group they identify with as their larger family, or indeed, just plain brain washed.
What about that group that builds an army and nuclear weapons that could wipe out humanity completely, and in the name of defense no less? What kind of insanity have they been indoctrinated with?