The False Tyranny of Words

a reply to: daskakik

Words can describe intent. Words can be and often are different than the 'intent' of the source of the communication.

One who takes all communication literally is open to rude surprises....

Therefore, words and intent are two distinctly separate subjects.

a reply to: nwtrucker

True, but I didn't say that all communication should be taken literally.

Within the scope of the OP, when the words do in fact describe the intent then the reaction is not just to words.

ETA: Actually even if they don't describe the intent, the reaction is seldom based just on words.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Thinking is a biological process. Believing we are under threat, even if we aren’t will cause stress, etc.

You also said...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
and to finally come to the realization that not only do words do not hurt, they cannot hurt, one can also learn to overcome the tyranny of words which she ultimate places on herself.

Do you not see the confusion here?

No.

OK, well if there is no confusion between the 2 then your whole argument falls apart with the fact that some words need to make us believe we are under threat.

Sometimes we are under threat.

Provided you can eternally avoid threatening situations you are absolutely correct.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And yet we're still able to exchange different opinions with the same language. Unless the Newspeak and revisionism of language kicks in, of course.
Absolutes make absolutely no sense here. Of course we can learn to understand every language we've never heard before, just a matter of time and effort. That's how this rudimentary espanol of mine found it's way home via tres delinquentes and spanish lessions in school.

a reply to: daskakik

Agreed. That's part of the entertainment of ATS, zeroing in on the intent/actual views of the poster. Mostly fun, sometimes not so much.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Had never actually thought of it that way. Now I'm depressed. Damn those words!!!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: InTheLight

Either way, they are reactions which would not take place without the words being there.

True, so are we talking chaos?

a reply to: InTheLight

No. We are the chanting, dancing and destructive power of creation.

a reply to: daskakik


LMAO..

originally posted by: InTheLight
True, so are we talking chaos?

Do you mean that we are chaos that talks or discussing chaos?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Before I jump into this thread, I have a few things to ask Les.

1. Can you define the qualifiers for 'Hurt'?
Are we talking about a response in pain receptors only?

I agree with the premise, though not entirely with how it was presented. You've got one hell of a brain on you sir.

Here's my thoughts on it:
I myself don't classify hurt as only a physical response. We are emotive, social beings. Emotional pain can be bad; in some cases worse than physical pain in my opinion. We all have choices, though. If you hear hurtful words, you can -choose- to remove yourself from the situation, or even in certain situations, remove the offending party from the situation. You can't really choose to not be hurt by words, but you can choose how you react to that hurt. Reactions will vary, too. The 'ban on words' has been expected, atleast by myself, for a while now. Some people react by trying to litigate, and legislate. Some choose to not react. Some react with words, and some react with violence. Different strokes for different folks.

If i'm being completely honest, though, I do feel that a person who wishes to use words they know will hurt someone, should be prepared to back up what they're saying physically. My own personal opinion, is all that is though. I was raised in a violent environment.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I completely agree , unless you are Dovahkiin "FUS ,DO , RAH"

a reply to: jjsr420

I thought this was proven before that words cant hurt as C-fibres in the neural tissue arent firing which is the common indicator of pain being felt in the body , I had discovered this in a philosophical debate on pain and suffering and Buddhism .

Humans cant physically feel pain from spoken words, unless the words are spoken loudly and directly into the ear canal in which case yes the volume of the spoken word could hurt if the voice is loud enough and close enough
but still humans cant physically feel pain in the physiological sense.

Similarly im sure they discovered that humans cant feel physical pain from emotional states, it can only bring sadness and depression which can lead to pain down the line , but indirectly and not directly from the person who has inflicted emotional stress because Im sure they proved that no C-fibres were firing in the neural tissue hence no physical pain being felt.

Whom so ever use political correctness, will be slain by it...

Especially whebthey take it back and say, sorry or tell those they told, to grow up when they back down. At least one should die for their cause...don't you think?

a reply to: Specimen

F you, f you too, I don't even know you, but f you too. and the fact that I'm imagine a pretty face looking at me, and I say, well f you too, or you can f me i...wink*

F u, f that guy over there, and the rest can go to hell, an f each other.

And I hate everything that has to do with rainbow, sunshine, and unicorns or just positivity in general.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: jjsr420

I thought this was proven before that words cant hurt as C-fibres in the neural tissue arent firing which is the common indicator of pain being felt in the body , I had discovered this in a philosophical debate on pain and suffering and Buddhism .

That's interesting but isn't this a pointless barrier to discussion?

The benefits of words will always outweigh the damage caused by them.
I may be wrongly assuming your position but...

If words were proven to be equally as damaging as sticks and stones would your pro-freedom of speech stance change?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

it's not a pointless barrier to discussion it's factual evidence to support what we already know words cannot cause direct physical pain .

Now if it were the case that words were shown to cause phsyical pain where the subject hearing the words brain activity shows the c-fibres firing in the neural tissue then , maybe we would have to revisit the world of free speech and find out which words caused physical pain and most likely ban their use.

thankfully audible sound to humans in the form of speech doesnt cause physical pain but just carries information
in order to communicate, ultimately it is ones own ego which causes the person perceivable emotional pain which can later transfer into indirect pain ! such as self harm etc

originally posted by: sapien82
ultimately it is ones own ego which causes the person perceivable emotional pain which can later transfer into indirect pain ! such as self harm etc

By etc I'm guessing you mean someone causing the speaker pain?

It really a simple factual concept, which doesn't contradict the premise of the OP at all.

when you discredit the impact of language to alleviate the suffering it inflicts, you also revoke the joy and beauty that are similarly expressed via such flawed but effective methods, reducing verbal cues to mere noise and distraction. All that's left is raw data and the raw emotion from that data, impossible to replicate or communicate without taking someone by the hand and dragging them through an identical scenario for the sake of empathy and mutual cognizance. A bit tedious if you ask me. So if it's a false tyranny language holds over us, then I suppose some illusions may be considered useful if employed responsibly... But humans are not known for their tact so much as recklessly impassioned acts of self importance. And language has become awfully self important in its applications, I'll agree with you on that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

when you discredit the impact of language to alleviate the suffering it inflicts, you also revoke the joy and beauty that are similarly expressed via such flawed but effective methods, reducing verbal cues to mere noise and distraction. All that's left is raw data and the raw emotion from that data, impossible to replicate or communicate without taking someone by the hand and dragging them through an identical scenario for the sake of empathy and mutual cognizance. A bit tedious if you ask me. So if it's a false tyranny language holds over us, then I suppose some illusions may be considered useful if employed responsibly... But humans are not known for their tact so much as recklessly impassioned acts of self importance. And language has become awfully self important in its applications, I'll agree with you on that.

In fact it's the opposite. I am simply trying to show that humans have power over language rather than the other way around. That does not only not entail that we cannot find joy and beauty in them, but, on account of their artifactual nature, can create even more joy and beauty with them.