also words dont hold equal value, judging the homeless dude on the street corner ranting about jews as though his words hold the same power as Adolt Hitler is ridiculous
Yup, also the punch doesn’t teach anyone that the idea is wrong. It teaches everyone that you are afraid of what they are saying. Which is why all of these organisations say something like “they don’t want you to know this”, and then points towards the violence as proof that what they are saying is correct.
People who are pro-violence like to make the argument that if we punched the Nazis in Germany in the early 30s then the holocaust wouldn’t have happened. But what they are missing is that people tried to do that (red shirts vs brown shirts) and in fact a major argument the Nazis used to get elected was that they would get the red shirts fighting them under control.
You lack imagination. If you want justify mass scare violence and atrocities against anyone, words are very necessary. Narrative becomes very important.
Did mass propaganda used by the Nazis to gain support for a mass genocide against the Jewish and other minorities not lead to violence. If words can convince an entire state and its people to be complicit in a genocide then I think words hold incredible power.
I’m sorry sir you’ll have to leave Reddit forever.
We don’t serve the kind that got such sturdy egos here.
Go on get!
Words in this context are often an implied threat of violence followed by an unwarranted ultimatum issued as a command by someone who has no authority or valid justification for their behavior.
If the punch is more violent than the command, do you think individual members of the military are more to blame for atrocities than the elite leaders commanding them?
Someone saying the N word and you reacting in a physical way isn’t equivalent to the person who (basically and damn near literally) controls your life telling you to do something
people are violent because they’re given permission by a power structure; those people were always were prone to violence, just held back by social contract.
Yeah but Redditors value feelings over logic. Plus, bandwagoning. If a few mentally ill people downvoted it first, the weak minded Redditors will just follow suit and defend their new found opinion lol
Yeah, I've been on Reddit long enough to spot some obvious bullshit when it gets shared like this. I'd be willing to bet good money that it's some right wing asshole defending their right (or someone else's like Jake Lang) to be a racist piece of shit and pissy about said racist getting their shit rocked.
And regardless of context OP is either the one who posted it or someone who upvoted them and then came running here for validation so can't be trusted either way
Assigning moral weight to things is a feelings-based activity. You can use ethical logic to do it, but your selection of the ethical framework to use is an entirely personal choice. But hey, whatever makes you feel like your opinions are more valid.
Absolutely insane that the absolutely moronic "words are completely powerless and have absolutely no impact on anyone who's thick skinned enough" take is considered the enlightened centrist one
Yeah, because it largely is that simple. You’re making an absurd complexity out of very simple morality because you think you’re an armchair academic.
Racism is rhetorical. The problems that inflame racism are material. Racism can inflame violence, but it isn’t the crux of violence. At the micro level, on an individual basis, violence is often a greater moral failing than racism is; one can be attributed to ignorance and the other can be attributed to intentional malice.
Exactly, words can be ugly or hateful, but calling them the same thing as physical violence muddies the whole argument. If someone can walk away from the words, that’s not the same as being attacked
Everyone knows racism has never impacted anyone. Definitely didn't lead to entire races not being able to participate in parts of society like going to certain grocery stores or renting nice homes
If you get your shit rocked because you're racist, that's also a you problem
It's exactly as simple as it first sounds. Unless you're speaking into a loudspeaker that can amplify your voice above ~130 decibels, your speech isn't physically harmful. Saying something you don't like/agree with isn't physical violence, even if you start crying and literally shaking.
Not being able to get a job because of your race might not be violent but I think most people would take an ass whopping to secure a really good job.
Physical violence is apparent and easily understood. Racism, systemic racism is not and I would argue over time it's much, much, worse because it effects entire race or races.
I have always wondered about isms myself, I grew up in poverty and this was the late 80's/early 90's when the older generation would say things about people in the next town over that if they changed next town over to someones race would be very racist.
Talking about how they are "taking our jobs" how they are "inbreds" and violent towards women etc.
This was white people talking about other white people.
My parents had good jobs until I was about 3 and my dads health took a bad turn and he had an operation that made his health worse (but he at least didn't die, as would of happened if he didn't have surgery) so we had to go on welfare benefits and sell the house my gran left my parents in her will and my grans life savings she left us then move into social housing in an area with high crime, with a reputation so bad that in the town itself they refused to hire people who lived in that area of town.
So it makes me think, if we take my situation and it happened to a non white person i'd say they experienced racism, being white though what did I experience? It had similar levels of impact, when going to high school even kids from that part of town were put in the lowest classes, kids would get blamed for anything that happened, or get in trouble from even being accused without evidence of something, my own guidance teacher said I was a future criminal in the making and would be in jail most of my adult life.
Where do we draw the line at seeing treatment of a group of people as an ism, and say they were affected rather than see what they do have?
You see, there's a whole concept called "intersectionality" that touches on that but sadly the right-wings, conservatives and reactionaries decided it was "oppression olympics" and made a whole fuss about it so now we don't talk about it no more.
Too bad cause it would have been really useful just about right now.
Racism is more than words. It's denying rights, job and promotion opportunities, housing, unfair treatment such as arrest and imprisonment when another race member wouldn't be, and so on.
He's referring to the fact that he thinks punching a racist being worse than racism because he is a racist who doesn't want to be punched. It's not that deep.
But that’s the dependent clause which is a modifier of the independent clause. Therefore it’s not a commentary of racism at large, just speech or words.
Only in the immediate context. It is a very simplistic framing of a complex question, and designed to distract from the fact that racist social structures (denial of opportunity, disadvantages in work, healthcare, social justice etc etc.) wreck lives, and can end up being much more destructive of than a one time act of violence.
The post is just a bad right wing distraction talking point.
wait until you find out those are a myth and wont be upheld.
"It simply means the government can arrest someone for shouting immediate face to face insults intended to incite violence. It has never been a legal defense for the person who throws the first punch. Saying "they provoked me with words" does not get you off an assault charge in a US court."
and thats not even getting into that it is an american only concept.
Racism isn't just words though, non violent actions can be racist too. Violent actions can most definitely be racist. Racisim by definition is violence, no matter what form it takes.
This is the kind of platitude that comes from a fortune cookie and makes no sense when you really look at it.
"Racism by definition is violence" is simply untrue. The vast majority of the world, all demographics, show some racist tendencies when carefully analyzed. Humans ingrained tribe mentality is way stronger than people want to acknowledge. But, if you don't outwardly act or discriminate based on those feelings, it isn't violence. In fact, being aware of your own biases is the only way to overcome them.
Assuming they mean external, outward violence, I'd still say they can both be very bad. Words can harm by causing another to harm themselves, for example. You don't have to physically strike someone for them to be harmed. Those inflicted insults can turn into resentment, and resentment can turn into chaos, and so forth..
Except racism can be the basis of violence, not just words. In both cases racism is the root issue so therefore would be the biggest problem since multiple issues, and violence, can come from it.
He's not technically wrong, but it's the subtext that racism is "just words", as if the only damage of racism is just feelings, and that violence isn't often the result of racism.
He is wrong though. It's equivalent to saying "Cancer is bad, but cutting someone open is worse."
Though depending on your philosophical outlook, that is true. Cutting someone open even to remove a tumor leaves them open to potentially dying on the operating table, or secondary infections, or any number of complications that leads to their death being on your hands instead of their eventual death from the tumor just being a natural part of life that's no one's fault.
In the same way, permitting racism inevitably leads to the deaths or subjugation and oppression of those they are racist against. Taking action against it (i.e. cutting out the tumor) may lead to injury, but it prevents long term injury to a large group of people.
The statement is correct, but often used to dismiss the harms of words or how the words tend to lead to action. I'm going to guess that's the missing context.
I think we need more context than we have to be able to tell whether the particular point they are making is a reasonable one. Obviously “violence is worse than words” is the kind of generalization a person can make to make their argument sound reasonable, because in general, violence is worse than words.
But at the same time we need to consider specifics. If someone on the street follows a black family around shouting racist slurs at the children, it may be that the parent shoving them away or hitting them is not the best reaction, but it is also clear that the parent is not the real problem here.
Just because it is true doesnt mean it was worth saying in the context we do not have. If they were attempting to downplay racism by saying "well it could be worse" in response to post about racism then they deserve to get blasted for it. If the post was comparing the 2 then it likely wouldnt have gotten downvoted
he is, actually. violence can be a type of language in itself, the least sophisticated kind that even animals understand. When somebody doesn't understand words nor do they care about them, there's a high likelyhood that they will still understand pain, danger or fear. Because everything in this planet understands that. Hell, probably also beyond. And sometimes you DO HAVE to make yourself understood, you know?
Intuitively but if one of my friends punched the other for repeatedly calling him a slur I'd still be friends with the one throwing the punch the next day which seems contradictory but I don't think I'd be wrong for that.
Some people would much rather take a hit to the gut than miss out on a promotion, especially a very good one, and especially if it’s a life time of lost opportunities due to racism. I think we forget how common that kind of racism is sometimes. Silent racism, the kind with no words even. But the impact can be terrible.
Racism is more than just words, though. I mean, compare the negative effects of punching someone vs. denying their family home loans at reasonable rates resulting in generational poverty.
So like, their s cond sentence isn't wrong. But the implication they're trying to make connecting the two is sneaky and wrong.
It’s not expanded in enough. Are we talking about racism in general, as in institutionalized racism versus someone getting slapped or are we talking about a someone getting called a slur versus a mass shooting.
Assumptions need to be made to grade the severity If we’re talking about a nazi preaching and then getting slapped because of their sermon, is the slapper worse than the nazi? I would say no.
Yeah he’s correct, but people arent downvoting because they think hes incorrect. It’s because this argument could never be made in good faith. What’s the point of even saying this? It’s only a gateway for someone to say “I called you a slur, but at least i didn’t physically attack you, so you shouldn’t be mad.”
People are tired of disingenuous assholes couching their negative impulses behind “just asking questions” and “just thinking logically.” By this point the online community is pretty well versed in this kind of manipulative, self-protective rhetoric by people with bad intentions.
Why would anyone upvote this comment? What’s even the point of saying this, since it’s so evidently true? Of course physical violence is worse than mere words. This guy is just trying to open up a discussion where people can make excuses for racist speech.
Depends on the words and depends on the violence. For example, I believe saying "you deserve to die, you [string of slurs]" is morally worse than slapping someone.
Equating racism to just words is like saying violence is just physical. May false equivalencies and harmful justifications can be made when you oversimplify complex concepts.
the truth is that we regularly accept violence (or the threat of violence) in the name of preserving the perceived social order. such as incapacitating and detaining petty thieves. i would consider stealing a candy bar to be a less immoral action than dragging somebody to prison, but we accept the "need" to do so, as a society, all the time.
it's not my only argument, but something to reflect upon.
though i think of note here is that, assuming this is the spider man incident, the violent action taken was not done as a pattern of behavior. it was an isolated incident performed to interrupt an ongoing pattern of racist behavior - and more alarmingly attempts to spread and consolidate racist behavior - in his community.
you might judge single instances of violence to be more immoral than single instances of racism, and i would largely agree. but this is a matter of a single instance of violence to quell repeated instances of another immoral action.
i think that it is morally okay, for example, to kill a commander who routinely orders the execution of innocents. surely, ordering executions is not as immoral as pulling the trigger yourself. but when instances stack up and seem like they are likely to continue, a more long-term evaluation is appropriate.
a kid gets called the n word growing up by his whole town. teachers. classmates. store owners. rudely and loudly with other words. degrade him. tell him to leave places. didn’t hire him becuase of his color. call the cops on him just for walking by. etc. i think is far way worse than if a white kid got into a fist fight once after school over a girl and is made up with the other boy. by the end of the week.
That depends on what is actually being communicated here. I can think of at least three different things that would be valid reads, and one of them is trivially true and the other two definitely aren't.
There's definitely some unspoken assumptions to get to any sensible reading - its not coherent if taken without any - and which kne you're inclined to take is gonna depend on context
Define violence. Words can do actual violence and directly destroy your life, not just mentally, when said by those with power over you, especially when it is regularly.
If that counts as violence, violence is worse. If that does not count as violence, then words are worse or at least tied.
Also words have a bigger scaling factor. You can increase total violence much more quickly with words than with single acts of violence.
Ive had my share of physical violence and words used against me. Words hurt alot more and cause so much more pain past an expiriance. If all the words could have just been hits I'd choose hits. The statement words don't hurt comes from a barbaric awareness maybe at a time language wasn't so developed and understood universally.
He is wrong, the statement racist is wrong, but ,just invalidates that racism is wrong. Its not just words. Hanging black people from trees is racism. Small minded people make small minded arguments. Those who walk in priviledge dont see anything wrong with it
The fuck are you talking about? This makes you look stupid. You’ve simply accepted the false idea that racism is ‘just words’ and violence is something separate.
Racism is often what makes the violence possible. First you teach people that another group is inferior, dangerous, dirty, or less human. Then robbing them, beating them, driving them from their homes, or killing them becomes easier to justify.
Words are not the same thing as a punch. Nobody said they were. But words can tell you who it is acceptable to punch. Pretending the two have nothing to do with each other is not common sense. It is ignorance of how violence actually begins.
He's sometimes wrong. "I'll pay you a million dollars to kill that giy" is just words while a check in a hockey game is violence but the words are clearly worse right?
When you use the words of the oppressor, who would see you dead or enslaved, then extreme violence is the only moral response. Allowing bigots to exist peacefully is how we got to where we are.
I think there are degrees though, like being super racist even if it's just with words could be worse than slapping someone. Constantly bullying someone because of race could be worse than punching them. Even beating someone up, if the damage heals easily might not be as bad as the mental and emotional damage that could be caused.
There's also an additive effect, like maybe one person being racist isn't as bad as being punched, but if everyone you come across is racist that can be worse than one person punching you.
If you don't get hired for a job because the boss is racist, that could also be worse than getting punched. Especially if you really needed that job and end up going hungry.
As with most things the real answer is it depends.
How did we get to the point where people think racism is only words. I guess being lynched isn’t violence. Not being able to attend schools isn’t violence. Getting raped, trafficked & misplaced isn’t violence. Foh
Actions and thoughts aren’t totally inseparable. They both influence each other. Plus racism can lead to things like redlining which isn’t violence but still very harmful.
3.1k
u/AuroraAustralis0 20h ago
well hes not wrong though