The False Tyranny of Words

Why should your right to free speech trump a person's right to not be offended?

What gives you the right to offend me by asking that question?

Uh ...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
"Language is the mother of thought, not its handmaiden." - Karl Kraus

What is more important is to try to figure out the intentions and motivations behind it.

a reply to: daskakik
Nah, that's covered by "confront...resolve" choice. In our family, that was not an acceptable choice. Violence was reserved for self defense. I still believe that is the civilized way for adults to behave. Losing control of one's emotions due to being called nasty names is a sign of immaturity. Calling people nasty names is likewise a sign of immaturity.

a reply to: diggindirt

If that is not an acceptable choice then it wasn't really part of "confront...resolve".

I agree with it not being the civilized way but it is still a choice someone can make. Just the fact that it was reserved for self defense says that you acknowledge that it is a possibility.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The biggest users of words to incite 'hate'.

So you disagree with the OP?

I suggest you read the OP again.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

What gives you the right to questions his right? An unending loop. goes nowhere.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't need to. I know the message:

And the words? They are wholly innocent.

So when you blame someone of being:

The biggest users of words to incite 'hate'.

You are disagreeing because the words don't incite hate. They are wholly innocent.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You didn't see the video?

It's what he was asked and then he asked the second question (in different words) and turned the tables on the interviewer. She stumbled to answer and pretty much acknowledged his point.

a reply to: bgerbger

That’s not an argument. Try again when you learn to form one.

a reply to: daskakik
Ah, but an unacceptable choice is still a choice. You make the decision to act in an uncivil manner, whether it be calling some one a bad name or reacting to such words with violence.

Why on earth would one respond to words with violence? Why allow one's self to be controlled by the idiot saying the ugly crap?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: daskakik
Ah, but an unacceptable choice is still a choice.

That is what I'm saying.

You make the decision to act in an uncivil manner, whether it be calling some one a bad name or reacting to such words with violence.

Correct and some people might decide to do that.

Why on earth would one respond to words with violence? Why allow one's self to be controlled by the idiot saying the ugly crap?

It's a personal choice. Regardless of the reason why, some people might chose to react that way, and this brings us back to the point of the OP, does that mean that words can be used to incite and if so, are they wholly innocent?

I mean, sure, if you apply a good dose of reductionsim, but real world situations are not always just words spoken followed by violence. Many times there are motives behind the action of saying the words and also for the violence that follows.

I feel we both disagree with the OP, but he just writes so pretty, doesn't he?

a reply to: diggindirt

Why on earth would one respond to words with violence? Why allow one's self to be controlled by the idiot saying the ugly crap?

Because they cannot do otherwise. They believe the words push them to do things, when it is obvious they decide to move on their own accord. Simple physics.

a reply to: daskakik

Many times there are motives behind the action of saying the words and also for the violence that follows.

My friend, I can assure you that there are always motives behind people flinging hurtful words and fists.

Yes, I always enjoy a well-reasoned and written thread from Les.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: diggindirt

Why on earth would one respond to words with violence? Why allow one's self to be controlled by the idiot saying the ugly crap?

Because they cannot do otherwise. They believe the words push them to do things, when it is obvious they decide to move on their own accord. Simple physics.

It must get really messy when two people holding those beliefs cross paths.
I suppose the shrinks would say I was brainwashed, first by my parents then by the civil rights and anti-war movements. We were taught to refrain from acknowledging the words flung at us. Peace, love and unity!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But in order to believe that, they must also believe that certain visual and audible symbols, so long as they are configured and expressed in a certain way, can have physical effects on human body and human societies. And to believe that, they would also need to believe that certain visual and audible symbols, expressed as articulated sounds, groups of pixels, scratches, marks or ink on paper, can manipulate human biology from afar—spooky action at a distance.

Great thread.

Isn't this "spooky action" proven?
Placebo's are proven to be effective in some circumstances.

Free speech, which includes hate speech should be protected at all costs. It does get interesting when you see the physical changes that words and peoples environments can cause.

Am I a hypocrite claiming that you shouldn't use violence yet I'm fine with words which can cause (arguably) equal damage?

Yes.

I will never disagree with absolute freedom of speech (yell fire all you like) but for my views to be consistent I probably have to support freedom of violence also.

Words can be fashioned in such a way to be like arrows or swords, as we know thoughts are made up from words. Quiet often we craft them within our own mind and then fire them at our selves. Ourselves being our body and our very own co created personality. So what one can do to oneself, one can do to another. But from your OP, what I think you are pointing at is that in an ideal world words should not really reach us. If we allow those words to reach us and hurt us is because we have not grown enough thick skin.
On the other hand, it seems you are saying that freedom of speech is so very very important. Mainly, because if we need to police everything, we will live in a plastic world. A no worries world, a comfortably numb world.a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how do explain Emoto and his discovery that consciousness or projection of emotions which include words affect the molecular structure of water?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So how do explain Emoto and his discovery that consciousness or projection of emotions which include words affect the molecular structure of water?

Emoto did refuse to replicate the experiment under controlled conditions when asked by the Amazing Randi.

Of course that's not proof of anything, he probably just didn't need the million dollars.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It's proof of something and that would be not everybody worships money.