Incitement, and other nonsense.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I certainly hope not. I'm not in agreement because your argument that words can't influence people is just wrong.

So people are not responsible for their own actions.

It's the words fault!

Words have absolutely no power over anyone unless they LET them.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Are you suggesting I'm not in agreement with you because of the limits of my language, understanding and education?

I am suggesting that you are the cause of your own decisions.

Sure, you may think it is immature, but I'm not the one suggesting words travel through the air and manipulate matter.

a reply to: Mikehawk

You ask that as if I'm Rwandan (I'm not).

I'm noticing a pattern with you. You ignore most the post that you quote then ask a simple question without addressing the meat of the post. That's two loaded questions in a row from you in this thread alone.

I'm not a Hutu from the 1990s so my opinion on whether or not I would participate is meaningless as I have nothing to relate to.

As a Westerner who considers myself to be compassionate towards my fellow humans, I will only hurt another human as a last resort in self defense.

I will no longer respond to you until you stop playing games.

No, I'm not asking that as if you were Rwandan. I'm asking if propaganda can compel you to commit genocide. It's not a loaded question.

There is no meat to your post.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Words can incite, words can start wars. Words carry that kind of power, you only pretend otherwise. Does that mean we need to review laws? No. I think we've got it right.

Beware of those who believe in “incitement”, that words can “stir-up” hatred or violence or animosity in others

It's good advice, it's not a good idea to go crying every time we don't like what someone says.

But beware also of those that will not take responsibility for handing matches to a fire bug.

a reply to: Kali74

Words can incite, words can start wars. Words carry that kind of power, you only pretend otherwise. Does that mean we need to review laws? No. I think we've got it right.

Not really.

Cuz if they did.

I'd already be wagin 'jihad' on everyone that disagreed with me.

I don't though.

a reply to: neo96

Can doesn't mean always.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Can doesn't mean always.

Well woulda,coulda,shoulda,mighta.

Don't fly.

a reply to: Kali74

Words can incite, words can start wars. Words carry that kind of power, you only pretend otherwise. Does that mean we need to review laws? No. I think we've got it right.

Can you name one war that was started by words? The pretending is yours. We only need look to see that it isn't words clamouring over battlefields and fighting each other.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

All wars were started by words, not literally no of course not. But words as I've already stated are the embodiment of thoughts and ideas, which covers pretty much everything humans get up to. Where not all mindless zombies (not yet anyway) words are just the expression of our ideas, and its ideas that get things done. Sure not all ideas come to fruition, to the frustration of some and the joy of others. But we are all influenced by words and ideas none the less. To what degree is highly subjective and personal, granted. But to claim emotions aren't affected by words(ideas) is not only nonsense but also I feel a tad dangerous.

Can you honestly tell me, you've never read something that has affected you emotionally, ever, just a wee bit? Or inspired you in some form or other? Really?

The battle these days is all about "hearts and minds" WW3 is litterally a war of words at this point, of ideas and information.

a reply to: surfer_soul

All wars were started by words, not literally no of course not. But words as I've already stated are the embodiment of thoughts and ideas, which covers pretty much everything humans get up to. Where not all mindless zombies (not yet anyway) words are just the expression of our ideas, and its ideas that get things done. Sure not all ideas come to fruition, to the frustration of some and the joy of others. But we are all influenced by words and ideas none the less. To what degree is highly subjective and personal, granted. But to claim emotions aren't affected by words(ideas) is not only nonsense but also I feel a tad dangerous.

Can you honestly tell me, you've never read something that has affected you emotionally, ever, just a wee bit? Or inspired you in some form or other? Really?

The battle these days is all about "hearts and minds" WW3 is litterally a war of words at this point, of ideas and information.

I love language—poetry, prose, song, etc. I am a voracious reader.

But to say it is the words that affect me is nonsense, and I think this sort of belief is not only scientifically false, but also a pernicious form of superstition. Clearly it is my own understanding, my own thoughts, and my own emotions that are affecting me, and is the prime motivator for any subsequent action.

Let's try it:

How does this word affect you:

חָבֵר

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That word has no apparent effect on me because I don't know the meaning or context. But if I did it might well.

So it is your own understanding, your own thoughts, and emotions that are affecting you, and the prime motivator of your subsequent action. I wouldn't disagree what so ever. But did you ever stop to ask yourself what are your own thoughts anyway? Just how many original ideas have you had? I mean truly original? I think you'll find when you think about it they are few and far between. Everything is inspired by something else as far as I'm aware.

And if you want to go into scientific research I'm sure I can make my case. However words are a vital form of communication and I think through your words I understand your POV a little more, but unfortunately you not getting mine. Oh well.

a reply to: surfer_soul

That word has no apparent effect on me because I don't know the meaning or context. But if I did it might well.

So it is your own understanding, your own thoughts, and emotions that are affecting you, and the prime motivator of your subsequent action. I wouldn't disagree what so ever. But did you ever stop to ask yourself what are your own thoughts anyway? Just how many original ideas have you had? I mean truly original? I think you'll find when you think about it they are few and far between. Everything is inspired by something else as far as I'm aware.

And if you want to go into scientific research I'm sure I can make my case. However words are a vital form of communication and I think through your words I understand your POV a little more, but unfortunately you not getting mine. Oh well.

No I get your point. My only problem is the way we describe it, and the grammar used to do so. It leads us to strange and dangerous conclusions. The words are not agents acting upon us. We are the agents acting upon the words.

If the word had no effect on you, how can you say that words affect us? Clearly it is the understanding, or lack thereof in this case, that is cause of any subsequent effect.

We are blaming the wrong culprit—the words, the language—codifying censorship into law because of it, thereby hindering our greatest tools and one of the best ways we can share our thoughts, and all without accomplishing anything we set out to fix.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not sure how I'll come back to that, or if its needed, but good point and well taken. Have a star from me.
Still though, I think words have a kind of power of their own almost, or the ideas behind them anyway, even that word I don't know had a kind of subjective thing about it I can't fully explain.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I'm not sure how I'll come back to that, or if its needed, but good point and well taken. Have a star from me.
Still though, I think words have a kind of power of their own almost, or the ideas behind them anyway, even that word I don't know had a kind of subjective thing about it I can't fully explain.

It was hebrew for "friend". Cheers.

So If I read the bible.

Does that mean I 'incited' myself to be God ?

After all we are what we 'read'.

a reply to: neo96

So If I read the bible. Does that mean I 'incited' myself to be God ? After all we are what we 'read'.

People that read and believe in the bible don't consider themselves incited to think they're god, they just believe in the teachings of the bible. On the other hand atheists find the bible to be mostly nonsense and don't even believe in a god, let alone feeling incited to be one. So yeah crap analogy you made there.

Sure people are responsible for their own actions, and if I don't know what a word means it won't affect me, but it's the meaning that counts, and words have meaning.

I'm not saying words are responsible for peoples actions, but ideas are, and ideas are generally conveyed through words. if for example I decide to go out and say a bunch of horrible and nasty things to someone, those words will have an affect and cause a reaction. What that affect or reaction will be, will vary from person to person. Some might even be able to laugh it off, but it will affect them none the less. They wouldn't be quite human if not.

Nobody is attacking words alone, but there are reasons why we have laws for slander, and hate speech is a vile thing in its own right, personally I have nothing to do with those that express hatred to others, or try to spin some group or person as such and such without presenting the full facts.

Truth will be truth whether we accept or cooperate with it or not. But deception, requires our acceptance and cooperation. T McKenna

I'm probably out of the loop on what is being referred to.

I would agree that words alone cannot incite much emotion. But a combination of words with powerful body language can. Actors know this. Hitler knew this.

Body language, tone and volume of voice, and even the sensual input that is under the radar of the conscious awareness can all stimulate the hormones and the mirror neurons.

The absolute insistence that we are immune to influence through sheer force of will is a mistake, I think. It just ends up with a conscious will to justify, explain, and claim choice making source when in fact there was not. "I meant to do that because..." Excuses which appeases the fear of not being in control of everything.

a reply to: Bluesma

Interesting thoughts.

But I take issue over the words "stimulate" or "influence", as if gestures and sounds and words were acting upon us in some fashion. It's not true, and is a repetition of the question. We have yet to prove what has only ever been assumed: the mistaken belief that the words and gestures and signs are the active agent, and we the passive object.

In fact it's the opposite. We are the actors. It is we who see, hear, consider and assess our surroundings, and that includes the words and gestures of others.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

Interesting thoughts.

But I take issue over the words "stimulate" or "influence", as if gestures and sounds and words were acting upon us in some fashion. It's not true, and is a repetition of the question. We have yet to prove what has only ever been assumed: the mistaken belief that the words and gestures and signs are the active agent, and we the passive object.

In fact it's the opposite. We are the actors. It is we who see, hear, consider and assess our surroundings, and that includes the words and gestures of others.

Mirror neurons prove this faulty though. Only in Autism and psychopathy is one free of influence.
Our emotional states and actions are not all as consciously chosen as we would like to believe. This is why Edward Bernays propaganda methods continue to rule the nation - because we are influenced, and so attached to believing we're not. Claiming "I chose to do this of my own free will, with no outside influence" we make it easier for those who want to manipulate.