When Words Become Violence

a reply to: daskakik

And what does a statue represent to me?

On one hand they represent freedom of expression and on the other, as you yourself said, things of value to the human race.

originally posted by: daskakik
On one hand they represent freedom of expression and on the other, as you yourself said, things of value to the human race.

I never said they represented anything. They are statues, artifacts of human creation. Statues do not represent statues and artifacts of human creation; they are statues and artifacts of human creation.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I never said they represented anything.

The key word is "value". You did say humanity is being robbed of them. That infers value but that is just an opinion on your part. Those who want them taken down think otherwise.

The part of freedom of expression is what I said they represent to you because that is what you are defending.

I get it though, you have to play semantics to keep up the argument.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes humanity is being robbed of statues, and also the chance to place value upon them.

Playing semantics... you say that like it’s a bad thing. Yet slovenliness of words equals slovenliness of thought. There is a reason post-modernists tend to dismiss it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes humanity is being robbed of statues, and also the chance to place value upon them.

Who is humanity? Aren't the people taking them down not also humanity?If a group wants them gone and nobody cares to save them then doesn't that mean that they don't care to place value on them and therefore are not being robbed?

Playing semantics... you say that like it’s a bad thing. Yet slovenliness of words equals slovenliness of thought. There is a reason post-modernists tend to dismiss it.

It isn't slovienliness. It is a perfectly logical conclusion that keeping statues up while a minority wants them taken down represents freedom of expression. That is the unpopular cause you are defending, isn't it?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes humanity is being robbed of statues, and also the chance to place value upon them.

Who is humanity? Aren't the people taking them down not also humanity?If a group wants them gone and nobody cares to save them then doesn't that mean that they don't care to place value on them and therefore are not being robbed?

Playing semantics... you say that like it’s a bad thing. Yet slovenliness of words equals slovenliness of thought. There is a reason post-modernists tend to dismiss it.

It isn't slovienliness. It is a perfectly logical conclusion that keeping statues up while a minority wants them taken down represents freedom of expression. That is the unpopular cause you are defending, isn't it?

I don’t understand a single argument you’re trying to put forward.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Excellent post, thoroughly enjoyed reading and soaking in the logic.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Really?

Humanity makes and destroys things. Always has. It is not robbed because these things belong to it, to do what it wants with them.

You are obviously defending free expression and its different forms: In your own words:

Where we once feared beasts, famine, and the dark, we now fear speech, imagery, symbols, and thoughts. Words are violence; statues illicit pain; speech is aggression; and to confront whatever thoughts arise in the midst of something we do not wish to hear is pure, abject torture.

But missing from this torture is any and all forms of injury. Before we criminalize the expression and restrict another’s freedom of thought, we should seriously consider how it is possible that another’s thoughts, whether seen or heard in their crystallized form, is able to injure us.

So yeah, you can say you never literally said it but you did include statues among the things that represent free expression, to you.

a reply to: daskakik

well doesnt that depend on how attached they are to form!

say it was the creator of said statue, they'd be attached to the form and would feel a loss at its destruction
and maybe would feel some form of suffering as their work had been destroyed for no apparent reason.

That is if they do feel so strongly attached to it.

Are those C fibres still firing in their brain mimicking pain at the loss of something they treasure
like when physical trauma is caused and c fibres do fire in your brain causing pain.

a reply to: sapien82

Just to be clear, I'm just fleshing out what I believe the OP is trying to say. I'm not saying that I totally agree. In fact, we have been going back and forth in this thread and other threads of his, which touch on the same basic theme, for over a year now.

To address what you said, how attached the creator is to his creation is dependent on their personal interpretation. One person can feel "a piece of me is being destroyed" while someone else might say "it stopped being mine the moment I got paid and handed it over".

The action of destroying the piece doesn't change, just the person's perception.

a reply to: daskakik

If that is the case and the person is feeling pain , then are they truly feeling pain in the same way as when actual physical pain is caused. Do C fibres fire in your brain on both occasions ?

Anyways a whole year and what are both of your conclusions if there are any to be drawn?



Ultimately what this comes down to is are humans feeling actual pain from words in the same way as people feel physical pain, now from what I understand of pain and suffering in terms of actual pain human brain c fibres fire energy and give the feeling of pain.
So legally if this was to be taken to court that someone was harmed by words, they'd have to prove that they felt physical pain , and that would be impossible to produc evidence of unless they had a brain scan at the time said words were said in the exact same environment.

I think this world would learn alot if we actual tried to deal with our emotions before reacting to them immediately.
but we dont need laws to protect people who cant control their emotional responses , we just need these people to do a bit of self reflection.

a reply to: daskakik

Humanity makes and destroys things. Always has. It is not robbed because these things belong to it, to do what it wants with them.

Destroying books, artwork , libraries, statues, or any other artifact, is to deny someone else the chance to use it, to look at it, to learn from it, etc. That's what I mean by "robbing humanity". It's metaphoricaL

a reply to: sapien82

But the OP doesn't recognize that. All I can say is that you can try to take it up with him. Good luck.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know what you mean but I'm pointing out that the negative connotation is a matter of personal interpretation.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know what you mean but I'm pointing out that the negative connotation is a matter of personal interpretation.

No it isn’t. It is a matter of reason and evidence. We can go through countless examples of that kind of censorship and go through how each one is a loss to the human race.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Evidence that it happens is not evidence that it is automatically negative. That is just your opinion.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating it but I'm not going to act like every example is "a loss to the human race". It just stands to reason that some, and probably many, are pretty insignificant unless you "feel" that they are important, which brings us right back to those feelings being no different than what someone feels from words or seeing those statues there.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Evidence that it happens is not evidence that it is automatically negative. That is just your opinion.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating it but I'm not going to act like every example is "a loss to the human race". It just stands to reason that some, and probably many, are pretty insignificant unless you "feel" that they are important, which brings us right back to those feelings being no different than what someone feels from words or seeing those statues there.

No I’m saying that there is evidence and argument that it leads to negative results, not that it happens. The tactic of calling arguments and evidence a matter of “personal interpretation” is a post-modernist rhetorical strategy to avoid the arguments altogether. All you have to say is you don’t want to hear the arguments and evidence. That at least would be more honest.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No I’m saying that there is evidence and argument that it leads to negative results, not that it happens. The tactic of calling arguments and evidence a matter of “personal interpretation” is a post-modernist rhetorical strategy to avoid the arguments altogether.

I'm saying that you can't speak in absolutes. Someone somewhere threw out a bunch of books, burned a bunch of old analog tapes or busted up some garden statues and while those things will no longer be available to be used or learned from, nobody really cares.

It isn't considered robbing from humanity unless you apply the same logic you are using to call people's hurt feelings magical thinking.

ETA: for clarity:

All you have to say is you don’t want to hear the arguments and evidence. That at least would be more honest.

Let's be clear. I don't need to hear the arguments and evidence because I already know and acknowledge them. Why go over something that is a given?

a reply to: daskakik

I'm saying that you can't speak in absolutes. Someone somewhere threw out a bunch of books, burned a bunch of old analog tapes or busted up some garden statues and while those things will no longer be available to be used or learned from, nobody really cares.

It isn't considered robbing from humanity unless you apply the same logic you are using to call people's hurt feelings magical thinking.

I can't speak in absolutes, but you can? What ridiculous hypocrisy.

No sorry, destroying mass produced replicas and recordings of videos or music is not the same as destroying originals. How about you try applying the same logic.