The False Tyranny of Words

a reply to: nwtrucker

In a reply about that video that you either didn't see or it went over your head.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Can you point to me where I misrepresented their argument in the OP?

Your whole premise is that people want to ban certain "words" because someone says they hurt or because they magically make people react.

It isn't necessarily pain caused by words that they are referring to and they may not be reacting to just the words but the actions that accompany them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I must confess that having read your reply, I wasn't totally sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with what I said. I can confirm that I was generally in support of your premise, but you seem to be on a hair trigger of contrarianism.. Likely not your fault, clearly you have some significant detractors, but still, your tone could use some softening. Your reply reads as being overtly confrontational, and from what I wrote, I can't quite see how you could have 'taken offence'.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Personally I believe words do affect us, they don't need to be yelled or even spoken with sinister tone, words we use have quite a lot of power and can cause all manner of emotions.

Yes, they can cause all manner of emotions.

But you own your emotions. Not the person that elicits it.

I can own my reactions to a certain degree, not my emotions. At least not all of them.

And I wont take the update to do so, that's cheating!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Oha.

*drops iron and steps back immediately*

If you don't mind me asking... is this recruitment or what exactly is going on?

I don't mind you asking, but I do not understand the question.

That's makes two of us.

I don't understand why you keep fighting for that unpopular cause regardless of the irony involved. But maybe we'll get there one day.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nwtrucker

In a reply about that video that you either didn't see or it went over your head.

Duh, it went over my head....

In context to the overall thread, my response is valid. You want to micro-dissect, fine.

By the way, 'words' and actions are separate issues.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In context to the overall thread, my response is valid. You want to micro-dissect, fine.

They maybe you should reply to the thread in general and not to a post, asking the author of that post "What gives you the right to questions his right?" which was what the video was about, the author posted it to express that same sentiment and you should have actually agreed with that post.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In context to the overall thread, my response is valid. You want to micro-dissect, fine.

They maybe you should reply to the thread in general and not to a post, asking the author of that post "What gives you the right to questions his right?" which was what the video was about, the author posted it to express that same sentiment and you should have actually agreed with that post.

Apologies.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: diggindirt

And my point is that people can be right in reacting to those motives and their reaction might not be to the words themselves. That would make OP's argument a strawman.

Would you please read that reply and explain to me what it means. It makes no sense.

If "their reaction might not be to the words themselves", are you saying that the words wouldn't matter? But isn't this discussion about speech rather than motives? If the words didn't cause the violent reaction why did you even bring it up? We are discussing freedom of speech and the possibility of being jailed for speech that another person finds offensive. We are discussing adult, public speech, not verbal abuse of children or adults in a private setting. Your attempt to move the discussion to motive in an attempt to justify violent behavior that is not in defense of bodily harm is a diversion from the OP. Causing bodily harm to another person who is not attempting to harm your person is illegal. You can be jailed for assault if you beat someone's head in because they said something you didn't like. How smart is it to risk being grabbed up by the authorities and put into the system simply because somebody said something nasty or stupid? You have put yourself under their power when you react in that manner and will probably end up under the authority of the courts for some time to come.

a reply to: nwtrucker


Harmless? Nay. In the right hands, words are magic spells. To prove it, I offer one example: a trial lawyers use of words to sway a jury to reach a conclusion in favor of the state or in favor of a defendant against the interests of the state.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: nwtrucker


Harmless? Nay. In the right hands, words are magic spells. To prove it, I offer one example: a trial lawyers use of words to sway a jury to reach a conclusion in favor of the state or in favor of a defendant against the interests of the state.

That lawyer in that situation is governed by the rules of the court. He does not have the same freedom of speech in that setting as he does when he speaks in the public square.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No problem but it is interesting that you reacted that way because you misunderstood the "words".

originally posted by: diggindirt
If "their reaction might not be to the words themselves", are you saying that the words wouldn't matter? But isn't this discussion about speech rather than motives?

It doesn't mean that the words don't matter but that they are not the only things that matter. This discussion tries to reduce human interaction to just the words and the reaction to them.

Your attempt to move the discussion to motive in an attempt to justify violent behavior that is not in defense of bodily harm is a diversion from the OP.

I'm not justifying it. I'm saying it can happen. It isn't a diversion from the OP.

Causing bodily harm to another person who is not attempting to harm your person is illegal. You can be jailed for assault if you beat someone's head in because they said something you didn't like. How smart is it to risk being grabbed up by the authorities and put into the system simply because somebody said something nasty or stupid? You have put yourself under their power when you react in that manner and will probably end up under the authority of the courts for some time to come.

I agree with all of that but it still happens.

My point is that when/if it happens what are you going to do, repeat OP's argument to show them that their philosophy is wrong and hope that they see the light?

a reply to: daskakik
Are you asking me if someone beats me about the head for something I've said to them in the public square, what am I going to do? I'm going to turn them over to the cops and let the prosecutor and judge explain to them the error of their ways.
If you are asking what I'm going to do if someone calls me nasty names, I'm going to ignore them or smile and walk away wishing them peace and prosperity. I know this because I've lived it. I got called all sorts of vile names during the civil rights and anti-war marches. Peace brother.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: daskakik
Are you asking me if someone beats me about the head for something I've said to them in the public square, what am I going to do? I'm going to turn them over to the cops and let the prosecutor and judge explain to them the error of their ways.
If you are asking what I'm going to do if someone calls me nasty names, I'm going to ignore them or smile and walk away wishing them peace and prosperity. I know this because I've lived it. I got called all sorts of vile names during the civil rights and anti-war marches. Peace brother.

Exactly, so this discussion is only a circle jerk for those who would keep their cool.

a reply to: daskakik

Are you entertained... yet?

Maybe it's AI learning to cope with the human terrain or just another batch of recruitments for the red list. I'm being paranoid again, am I?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nwtrucker

No problem but it is interesting that you reacted that way because you misunderstood the "words".

Wrong. I generally have no use for links unless specific information that changes a debate point. Subjective links are nothing more than weak 'link debates'. It uses someone else's 'opinion' as a replacement for one's own.

I prefer direct communication and evaluate that potential.

I tend to look up words when I don't know their meaning. Often right down to their etymology.

a reply to: nwtrucker

But the words in the post were in quotes.

Also you reacted to them, which happens to be the topic of the thread.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nwtrucker

But the words in the post were in quotes.

Also you reacted to them, which happens to be the topic of the thread.

Once again, wrong. I 'responded' to the stupidity communicated by a series of words. Not the 'words' themselves...

I would ban no words. No concepts associated with any specific symbol. None.

Banning words by labeling them hateful is nothing more than a psy-op to move the population into a specific direction and enhance control of the same.....with no mandate to do so.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Once again, wrong. I 'responded' to the stupidity communicated by a series of words. Not the 'words' themselves...

But the words were not communicating the stupidity that you thought they were.

I would ban no words. No concepts associated with any specific symbol. None.

Banning words by labeling them hateful is nothing more than a psy-op to move the population into a specific direction and enhance control of the same.....with no mandate to do so.

I agree but that isn't what I was pointing out.