You can extend the logic to hate crimes, dubiously legal, divisiveness in practice and intent. A crime is a crime. Selectively adding punishment of one murder over another is political, not moral.
Thanks for this excellent article. It occurs to me that when many people say "words are violence", what they are really saying is "discomfort is violence". Namely, *their* emotional discomfort.
Where discomfort is violence is if the discomfort caused by your words could cause the person experiencing it to self harm. Whether you want to call it discomfort, violence, pain- whatever- these are horrible sensations to experience.
OK - and yet, someone self-harming over what another may say (and we're talking adults here) needs help, not a culture of everyone in fear of words. Self-harm (your example) is horrible, of course. Combatting issues of self-harm should not revolve around what another person may say that provokes them to engage in self-harm.
First let me say I agree with you. Words used to incite someone to do something is actually a very common thing, many states, most I believe have laws against "Inciting Violence", "Incitement". "Inciting Crime", etc. Most of them are old laws, written when folks had an event, For example when some local clown with a loud mouth starts a riot in the streets over a trumped up grievance. So if my words incite someone to self destruct, or cause a shoot out at a place, well then Inciting is the charge, or something similar. If they result in death, then manslaughter it is.
Yes, you are right - inciting is a crime. I think what Greg is pointing to, however, is the idea that people internalize words that may cause them to have a personal emotional response that has nothing to do with intentional inciting (and therefore nothing to do with breaking the law). It is not my, nor anyone else's, responsibility to limit freedom of speech in case it might cause someone to feel discomfort. Nor is it anyone else's responsibility to limit theirs in case I'm offended or even horrified by what they may say. Are there laws in place like the one you mentioned for things that go above and beyond hurt feelings? Yes. Should there be? In my opinion, yes. But should people be fired from their jobs, publically shamed, threatened, harassed, etc., because they make a statement that I don't like or that makes me feel bad? Hell no. People have all kinds of opinions I find ridiculous, stupid, offensive - but I'm very glad they can state them, just like I'm glad I can state the ones I believe and others can't stand.
Well done, also your previous article with Jonathan Haidt in the Atlantic in 2017, especially as to how "speech is violence" is an ancient and repressive idea that democracy and Enlightenment ideas have superseded, and praise God for that. Please keep these clarifications coming. I also like your designation in other articles: "Social justice fundamentalism." (to help define the DEI, Critical Race Theory, etc.) Yes, these confusing manipulations of language ARE tactics.
Colorado Boulder website linked actually doubled down — they (ze?) state that misgendering somebody intentionally can be considered “not only an act of oppression, but also an act of violence”.
I agree that it's important to distinguish between violence and words. That said, consider the "12th man" phenomenon in football. Behaviors that are cheered, praised, and socially rewarded tend to become more prevalent and intensify. Behaviors that are condemned or ignored tend to become less prevalent. We are a social species and the words of others can alter behavior.
The most extreme end is hiring a hit man. Yes, the actual hit man is the one who commits violence, but the one who gives orders has a significant amount of responsibility for that violence.
Defining a certain category of people as rats, cockroaches, vermin, scum, or feces is not literally violence, but it certainly encourages violence. That's why any functional army includes a propaganda campaign on their own soldiers to define the opposition as less than human. That desensitization significantly increases a soldier's willingness to kill.
I don't believe that simple disapproval leads to violence, however. Prosecuting heresy as "violence" goes bad places.
I believe that it's important to defend the right to be wrong, be offensive, say stupid things, say ugly things, say cruel things, and generally be an asshole.
However, outright inciting, encouraging, or praising violence seems to be a different category to me. Sort of. I'm not sure precisely to draw the line, but something related to means, motive, and opportunity seems relevant. Power matters. And whether it was intended to be acted upon. Hyperbole isn't incitement.
I understand the impulse to resort to legal discourse to resolve the confusions about what constitutes violence, but it's a rigged game. The job of the law is to rescue an abstraction from the muddiness of real life. Instead of starting from a place where "real" violence is easily distinct from its reported symbolic counterparts, couldn't you help readers understand the moral morass you're aiming to both decry and circumvent? Abusive language might never rise to the level of physical abuse, but to deny that its effects might, in the end, be even worse than a moment of physical assault is to ignore the real suffering of those who don't or can't "fight" back. To also invoke Freud and his descendents, one of the chief "achievements" of civilization is to channel the energy of violence into the symbolic dimensions of culture. Maybe it's more devastating to be broken than merely to be struck.
Your point is well taken. An important context in which your argument needs to be seen more often is the abusive family. There is a growing body of research that psychological and emotional abuse of children is correlated with the development of mental and physical illnesses in victims, at levels that equal or exceed the long term damage correlated with physical and sexual abuse. In fact, physical and sexual abuse of children are themselves also psychological and emotional abuse, and they occur in families in which the latter forms of abuse are pervasive. Nevertheless, calling children's protective services about psychological abuse of children by a family usually does not result in an investigation. In many states physical abuse must be proven by expert testimony that bruises and broken bones were more likely than not to have been caused by physical violence.
Part of the problem is that CPS is ALWAYS psychologically abusive. It's inherently harmful. The question is whether it's less harmful than doing nothing. That's very clear if the kid has broken bones. Less clear if the kid's heart or spirit is being broken.
I have made CPS calls and it's important to do so when the circumstances warrant. Just be aware that everyone who ever interacts with that system comes out with scars.
We have the words as violence in many federal and state laws right now with anti BDS laws and the entire establishment holding hearings on a very specific worldview that has been conflated with Judaism.
Even if "from the river to the sea" is taken as its darkest interpretation it is still protected by the 1st amendment.
Greg, you weren’t kidding when you said it’s hard to stick to principles when the going gets tough, because these people saying “if only the sniper hadn’t missed” has been a tough case to defend.
Cancelling people for OK hand signs, donating to the “wrong” charity, having the “wrong” opinion, wearing a red baseball hat etc. those people are very easy to defend. No harm is being done, nobody is being harassed or menaced, the right to swing your arms until it hits my face principle holds.
Bemoaning an unsuccessful assassination attempt and even celebrating the death of Corey Comperatore as “-1 vote for Trump”, on the other hand feels like it’s dipping a toe onto (but not over) the line of incitement. You know better than I the legal grounds that show this not to be the case, but as we’re all witnessing in real-time, properly bifurcating what’s legal, what’s socially appropriate, and what gets meted out in response through what venue are lines that are readily blurred when tempers run hot.
As for what to do, we can’t always be serious when discussing these issues; sometimes it’s more effective to respond to the stupidity with parody, levity, mockery, etc.. Whenever the words are violence stupidity rears it’s ugly head, I’m reminded of a recent clip from Charlie Kirk, three standup comedians and, of all things, a Garfield comic. Links below.
Charlie Kirk on the need for open communication (managed to find a non clickbait link)
If it might be considered foolish for me as a woman to go for a solo hike why is it not considered foolish to attend a hate rally? And if you don’t think that a Trump event is a hate rally (mass deportation? Sending people back to a country they fled from FOR THEIR LIFE? Denying people their right to be what they feel like they are?)- where is the line?
I understand your points but I don’t know how else to characterize some types of speech. If you don’t believe that words can be violence, does that mean you don’t believe in verbal assault? What about the child or young wife who is belittled and demeaned and told they are worthless but shows no bruises or scars? Surely you are not saying that this should be protected speech.
Emotional abuse requires a certain level of knowledge of the target and power over that target. It's not random. I suppose an analogy might be throwing a fist-sized rock vs a handful of sand. A fist sized rock, aimed correctly, can be fatal. A handful of sand scatters. It's annoying as hell and may require the target to go wash out their eyes, but it's not going to be fatal.
Verbal abuse is violence. Psychological manipulations intended to cause flight-or-flight responses or disassociation and imbalance is violence. Having an opinion is not violence
I have held this until my mind was quiet enough to accept the many words under a headline that initially led to my deletion of the message (I'm that sick of any discussion of 'words are violence'). I immediately recovered the e-mail from my trash folder because in that split second between deletion and recovery I thought, "greg wouldn't waste readers' time with the same old take." And Greg, I was proven right. That and now I plan to use the "offense to those who've experienced physical violence" (unattributed, of course) response when the inanity of "speech=violence" is foolishly tossed in my direction.
Getting someone fired from their job for approval of the recent assassination attempt that has been on the side of cancel culture for years is nor violence or engaging in reverse cancel culture in any way. It is merely teaching them the lesson that free speech is important; only if they ever argued against cancel culture in the past should they be spared. I will, of course, agree that defenders of free speech deserve defending.
The "words are violence" position was always an obvious boondoggle from the force of wokeness, as proven by the summer of love in 2020. They never really meant it. It was a way of keeping a certain class of people in power by making the boundary between speech and violence fuzzy, then patting on the back the violent people they liked, and castigating those they did not. It also makes vigorous public discourse impossible.
You can extend the logic to hate crimes, dubiously legal, divisiveness in practice and intent. A crime is a crime. Selectively adding punishment of one murder over another is political, not moral.
'Hate' crime prosecution is often just an excuse for the federal government to butt into local issues that are none if its damn business.
I'd like a definition of what a Hate Crime is.
Hate crime is when a regular crime is committed by someone that can in any way be associated with Trump.
You May be on to something!
If we don't have hate crime statutes how will we punish murderers when they hatefully kill people?
Thanks for this excellent article. It occurs to me that when many people say "words are violence", what they are really saying is "discomfort is violence". Namely, *their* emotional discomfort.
Where discomfort is violence is if the discomfort caused by your words could cause the person experiencing it to self harm. Whether you want to call it discomfort, violence, pain- whatever- these are horrible sensations to experience.
OK - and yet, someone self-harming over what another may say (and we're talking adults here) needs help, not a culture of everyone in fear of words. Self-harm (your example) is horrible, of course. Combatting issues of self-harm should not revolve around what another person may say that provokes them to engage in self-harm.
First let me say I agree with you. Words used to incite someone to do something is actually a very common thing, many states, most I believe have laws against "Inciting Violence", "Incitement". "Inciting Crime", etc. Most of them are old laws, written when folks had an event, For example when some local clown with a loud mouth starts a riot in the streets over a trumped up grievance. So if my words incite someone to self destruct, or cause a shoot out at a place, well then Inciting is the charge, or something similar. If they result in death, then manslaughter it is.
Yes, you are right - inciting is a crime. I think what Greg is pointing to, however, is the idea that people internalize words that may cause them to have a personal emotional response that has nothing to do with intentional inciting (and therefore nothing to do with breaking the law). It is not my, nor anyone else's, responsibility to limit freedom of speech in case it might cause someone to feel discomfort. Nor is it anyone else's responsibility to limit theirs in case I'm offended or even horrified by what they may say. Are there laws in place like the one you mentioned for things that go above and beyond hurt feelings? Yes. Should there be? In my opinion, yes. But should people be fired from their jobs, publically shamed, threatened, harassed, etc., because they make a statement that I don't like or that makes me feel bad? Hell no. People have all kinds of opinions I find ridiculous, stupid, offensive - but I'm very glad they can state them, just like I'm glad I can state the ones I believe and others can't stand.
Well done, also your previous article with Jonathan Haidt in the Atlantic in 2017, especially as to how "speech is violence" is an ancient and repressive idea that democracy and Enlightenment ideas have superseded, and praise God for that. Please keep these clarifications coming. I also like your designation in other articles: "Social justice fundamentalism." (to help define the DEI, Critical Race Theory, etc.) Yes, these confusing manipulations of language ARE tactics.
Colorado Boulder website linked actually doubled down — they (ze?) state that misgendering somebody intentionally can be considered “not only an act of oppression, but also an act of violence”.
I agree that it's important to distinguish between violence and words. That said, consider the "12th man" phenomenon in football. Behaviors that are cheered, praised, and socially rewarded tend to become more prevalent and intensify. Behaviors that are condemned or ignored tend to become less prevalent. We are a social species and the words of others can alter behavior.
The most extreme end is hiring a hit man. Yes, the actual hit man is the one who commits violence, but the one who gives orders has a significant amount of responsibility for that violence.
Defining a certain category of people as rats, cockroaches, vermin, scum, or feces is not literally violence, but it certainly encourages violence. That's why any functional army includes a propaganda campaign on their own soldiers to define the opposition as less than human. That desensitization significantly increases a soldier's willingness to kill.
I don't believe that simple disapproval leads to violence, however. Prosecuting heresy as "violence" goes bad places.
I believe that it's important to defend the right to be wrong, be offensive, say stupid things, say ugly things, say cruel things, and generally be an asshole.
However, outright inciting, encouraging, or praising violence seems to be a different category to me. Sort of. I'm not sure precisely to draw the line, but something related to means, motive, and opportunity seems relevant. Power matters. And whether it was intended to be acted upon. Hyperbole isn't incitement.
My thoughts, not very well organized.
<sigh>
I understand the impulse to resort to legal discourse to resolve the confusions about what constitutes violence, but it's a rigged game. The job of the law is to rescue an abstraction from the muddiness of real life. Instead of starting from a place where "real" violence is easily distinct from its reported symbolic counterparts, couldn't you help readers understand the moral morass you're aiming to both decry and circumvent? Abusive language might never rise to the level of physical abuse, but to deny that its effects might, in the end, be even worse than a moment of physical assault is to ignore the real suffering of those who don't or can't "fight" back. To also invoke Freud and his descendents, one of the chief "achievements" of civilization is to channel the energy of violence into the symbolic dimensions of culture. Maybe it's more devastating to be broken than merely to be struck.
Your point is well taken. An important context in which your argument needs to be seen more often is the abusive family. There is a growing body of research that psychological and emotional abuse of children is correlated with the development of mental and physical illnesses in victims, at levels that equal or exceed the long term damage correlated with physical and sexual abuse. In fact, physical and sexual abuse of children are themselves also psychological and emotional abuse, and they occur in families in which the latter forms of abuse are pervasive. Nevertheless, calling children's protective services about psychological abuse of children by a family usually does not result in an investigation. In many states physical abuse must be proven by expert testimony that bruises and broken bones were more likely than not to have been caused by physical violence.
Part of the problem is that CPS is ALWAYS psychologically abusive. It's inherently harmful. The question is whether it's less harmful than doing nothing. That's very clear if the kid has broken bones. Less clear if the kid's heart or spirit is being broken.
I have made CPS calls and it's important to do so when the circumstances warrant. Just be aware that everyone who ever interacts with that system comes out with scars.
We have the words as violence in many federal and state laws right now with anti BDS laws and the entire establishment holding hearings on a very specific worldview that has been conflated with Judaism.
Even if "from the river to the sea" is taken as its darkest interpretation it is still protected by the 1st amendment.
Greg, you weren’t kidding when you said it’s hard to stick to principles when the going gets tough, because these people saying “if only the sniper hadn’t missed” has been a tough case to defend.
Cancelling people for OK hand signs, donating to the “wrong” charity, having the “wrong” opinion, wearing a red baseball hat etc. those people are very easy to defend. No harm is being done, nobody is being harassed or menaced, the right to swing your arms until it hits my face principle holds.
Bemoaning an unsuccessful assassination attempt and even celebrating the death of Corey Comperatore as “-1 vote for Trump”, on the other hand feels like it’s dipping a toe onto (but not over) the line of incitement. You know better than I the legal grounds that show this not to be the case, but as we’re all witnessing in real-time, properly bifurcating what’s legal, what’s socially appropriate, and what gets meted out in response through what venue are lines that are readily blurred when tempers run hot.
As for what to do, we can’t always be serious when discussing these issues; sometimes it’s more effective to respond to the stupidity with parody, levity, mockery, etc.. Whenever the words are violence stupidity rears it’s ugly head, I’m reminded of a recent clip from Charlie Kirk, three standup comedians and, of all things, a Garfield comic. Links below.
Charlie Kirk on the need for open communication (managed to find a non clickbait link)
https://youtu.be/J0mBCSrDek4
George Carlin on offensive language
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvdXxhLPa8
Dave Chapelle on cancel culture
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/8jr-GZxF5To
Steve Hughes on being offended
https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo?si=po57-QgItm525oRY
Garfield on sticks and stones
https://www.gocomics.com/garfield/1981/10/25/
If it might be considered foolish for me as a woman to go for a solo hike why is it not considered foolish to attend a hate rally? And if you don’t think that a Trump event is a hate rally (mass deportation? Sending people back to a country they fled from FOR THEIR LIFE? Denying people their right to be what they feel like they are?)- where is the line?
Does anyone even know that old saying anymore? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt?"
I understand your points but I don’t know how else to characterize some types of speech. If you don’t believe that words can be violence, does that mean you don’t believe in verbal assault? What about the child or young wife who is belittled and demeaned and told they are worthless but shows no bruises or scars? Surely you are not saying that this should be protected speech.
Public vs. Private speech
So the rule is speech can be violence but only if it is private?
Emotional abuse requires a certain level of knowledge of the target and power over that target. It's not random. I suppose an analogy might be throwing a fist-sized rock vs a handful of sand. A fist sized rock, aimed correctly, can be fatal. A handful of sand scatters. It's annoying as hell and may require the target to go wash out their eyes, but it's not going to be fatal.
Words are energy - we can use them to uplift or pull down - each time, a choice. Violence is violence, also a choice.
Verbal abuse is violence. Psychological manipulations intended to cause flight-or-flight responses or disassociation and imbalance is violence. Having an opinion is not violence
I have held this until my mind was quiet enough to accept the many words under a headline that initially led to my deletion of the message (I'm that sick of any discussion of 'words are violence'). I immediately recovered the e-mail from my trash folder because in that split second between deletion and recovery I thought, "greg wouldn't waste readers' time with the same old take." And Greg, I was proven right. That and now I plan to use the "offense to those who've experienced physical violence" (unattributed, of course) response when the inanity of "speech=violence" is foolishly tossed in my direction.
Getting someone fired from their job for approval of the recent assassination attempt that has been on the side of cancel culture for years is nor violence or engaging in reverse cancel culture in any way. It is merely teaching them the lesson that free speech is important; only if they ever argued against cancel culture in the past should they be spared. I will, of course, agree that defenders of free speech deserve defending.
“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
“The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.”
The "words are violence" position was always an obvious boondoggle from the force of wokeness, as proven by the summer of love in 2020. They never really meant it. It was a way of keeping a certain class of people in power by making the boundary between speech and violence fuzzy, then patting on the back the violent people they liked, and castigating those they did not. It also makes vigorous public discourse impossible.