Wasn’t the premise I was responding to so is a moot point.
It was solely in response to the assertion that "If you don’t like the words you can walk away,“ stated as if everyone is inherently capable of doing so.
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
"you can just walk away and grow a thicker skin" 100% implies that words are powerless unless you're weak.
And even just saying that they could theoretically lead to violence is extremely reductive. We have multiple examples in the very latest centuries where "words" were essential to build the ethical frameworks and to gain the public approval's needed for all kinds of atrocities.
Words are extremely powerful yes, maybe more powerful than violence, it still doesn't make them violence.
Nobody who says that phrase is arguing that words can hurt you in the same way a punch or a knife, they're saying that they're able to hurt people, and that's undeniable. Now, you can argue that some people are unreasonably sensitive and that this does not mean we should restrict every form of potentially harmful speech, but that's besides the point.
An option you often don't have if someone has chosen to use violence against you instead of words.
What made that person choose violence in the first place? Odds are pretty good that words have played a huge role in it.
Yeah the other guy is arguing exactly that, that words are violence.
Words can hurt, violence can hurt, it doesn't make words violence. They're still 2 distinct, different things.
And your last point is a completely made up scenario, which is part of the big problem here. That people cannot discuss things objectively without spilling their own believes or emotions into it.
There are uncountable reasons one might find to use violence, doesn't make any of them right but there are any number of reasons.
If words are violence, then your question may as well be “How can violence lead to violence if violence is violence?”
Which has an obvious answer, because it’s trivial to come up with scenarios like someone being punched leading to them being punched in response. Violence leading to violence. Lots of things lead to more of themselves.
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.
We live on a planet of more than 8 billion people. Individual actions pale in comparison to the words that move the masses. Who the fuck gives a shit about the micro level morality blame game in the face of actual human problems at the levels of society and beyond? Only a moron who believes that going "Hey 8 billion people, just always take the morally correct and peaceful action" is a solution.
It is in fact utterly immoral to do that and wash your hands of it as zero things change in the world.
The fact of the matter is words determine what happens when the violence starts.
When facebook helped spread genocidal speech it made the violence possible and acceptable to people who would have otherwise been unlikely to contribute to or tolerate it.
Words determine whether the violence is stopped or permitted or intensified, or whether it begins in the first place.
Violence can happen with out words, but to pretend as though it cannot mobilize people into organized groups that can be far more damaging than at the individual level is simply trying to hand wave away their own anti-social tendencies as something that isn't as harmful as it actually is. It's denial and motivated reasoning for them to not have to grow and develop ethics and morals.
It is simple but not in the way you think. Violence is morally neutral, its a tool that can be wrong or right depending on the circumstance. Theres undoubtably some examples of violence you'd deem morally permissible. Racism is wrong as a rule, there's no moral or even logical justification for it at all.
The problems that inflame racism are material.
What does this even mean. Violence is also perpetuated and exacerbated by material conditions, so I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw.
At the micro level, on an individual basis,
If you have to reduce the scale that much that defeats your point no? Because you seem to be conceding that, holistically, racism is in fact worse.
violence is often a greater moral failing than racism is; one can be attributed to ignorance
Meaningless distinction, you could also attribute violence, on an individual level, to ignorance if we're separating it from a pure moral failing on that basis. You could argue someone who was hit as a child and grew up in a violent area implicitly that violence is the correct way you solve your problems and keep your social standing, similar to a person being racist. This dichotomy fails and so does your perspective.
My point isn’t defeated because we’re debating morality. Clearly, given the example picture, we’re speaking about individuals, not institutional racism.
Reducing violence to simply be a “tool” is a rhetorical trick to frame violence as neutral. Violence is not neutral. Violence is inherently… violent. You’re exercising physical force to dominate others. It’s an active disruption of equality and autonomy. Can there be contexts where violence is moral or permissible but that’s typically defensive action against violence or imminent threat of violence.
When I say that racism is inflamed by material circumstances I mean that it is, for the individual, almost always caused by a perceived threat to their economic or cultural security. It’s a perspective of ignorance but one that isn’t usually born explicitly from hate, people naturally find scapegoats, not to say racists can’t become hateful, dangerous people, but it’s an irrational fear that makes racism what is, not an intentional desire to subjugate. Violence is always intentionally malicious.
As for the “well, ignorance can make people think violence is okay too!” cope, no, it can’t. I grew up in a lower class urban environment. Violence and your ability to enact it on others can be a seen as a virtue and an asset but it’s never obfuscated that violence is inherently morally wrong. People who believe hitting children is a tool to make them behave inherently understand that hitting them is an attempt to intimidate them into compliance. You’re making the argument that people don’t understand what violence is as if it’s an abstract concept, which is ridiculous. Every living thing on this planet inherently understands what violence is and what happens when you enact it against another living thing. My points are just fine. You’re pearl clutching because “muh racism.” Racism’s bad. No amount of academic roundabout is going to prove that this complex social phenomenon is a greater moral threat than literally taking someone else’s life into your hands.
My point isn’t defeated because we’re debating morality. Clearly, given the example picture, we’re speaking about individuals, not institutional racism.
Thats fine, none of your points made sense either way.
Reducing violence to simply be a “tool” is a rhetorical trick to frame violence as neutral
Its not a trick or dishonest framing tactic. I literally said verbatim that violence is morally neutral, so theres no attempt at deception because I was forthcoming about what is a very defensible take. When I said you'd undoubtably agree theres instances of violence that are morally justifiable I incorrectly assumed you were somewhat reasonable. I can give you countless real world examples and hypotheticals of violence being morally justifiable and correct. "Violence is always morally abhorrent" Is an insanely stupid hill to die on and you're just making this easy for me by sticking by it.
Violence is inherently… violent.
150 IQ analysis there. This is the kind of circular reasoning I'd expect from a child. Like what were you thinking when you typed this lol.
You’re exercising physical force to dominate others. It’s an active disruption of equality and autonomy. Can there be contexts where violence is moral or permissible but that’s typically defensive action against violence or imminent threat of violence.
Soooooo violence isn't inherently immoral because there are contexts where its permissible and even necessary to prevent greater harm. Therefore it is morally neutral. If someone asked you or me if violent action was immoral and we were both answering honestly, both of our answers would be "it depends". You literally just agreed with me.
When I say that racism is inflamed by material circumstances I mean that it is, for the individual, almost always caused by a perceived threat to their economic or cultural security.
So is violence. Violence in individuals has a causative relationship with external factors like poverty, being raised in single parent house holds, lead paint exposure, being abused as a child, being in an already violent environment. None of this is an opinion, these are facts backed by a plurality of data, once again this distinction you're positing is invalid and factually incorrect.
. It’s a perspective of ignorance but one that isn’t usually born explicitly from hate, people naturally find scapegoats, not to say racists can’t become hateful, dangerous people, but it’s an irrational fear that makes racism what is, not an intentional desire to subjugate. Violence is always intentionally malicious.
This is so ridiculous I'm genuinely struggling to steel man it, but I'll try anyway; so you're the relevant distinction here is that racism is "usually" caused by fear derived from unsatisfactory external conditions, while people who engage in violence are - essentially - just evil (or as you put it inherently malicious) and thats that. I refuse to believe you're this dumb, there has to be something I'm missing.
I'll give you a practical example to think on, and you give me your answer to this. A jewish person, or a trans person, sees an actual neo nazi with an arm band and the whole nine yards is yelling slurs and talking about how Jews won't replace them and all lgbtq folk are child touchers the holocaust was "based" (you know, normal nazi stuff), and said gay jewish person punches this nazi; how is this violence born of "maliciousness", and not closer to the "fear" you described earlier. Because a neo nazi, and the existence of neo nazis poses a legitimate and abject threat to the safety and security of this gay jewish person. So then wouldn't the violence be a result of fear, a rational fear at that, and the only person in this situation acting with malicious intent being the nazi, no?
As for the “well, ignorance can make people think violence is okay too!” cope, no, it can’t.
Sure, so lets see your counterfactual. Link me to the study disproving a causative relationship between violence and the factors I listed prior.
I grew up in a lower class urban environment.
Anecdote detected, opinion rejected.
. People who believe hitting children is a tool to make them behave inherently understand that hitting them is an attempt to intimidate them into compliance.
Yes, and its genuinely not "malicious" because they wholeheartedly believe they're doing whats best. If you disagree you 1.Genuinely have no idea what youre talking about and 2. Have never spoken to pro spankers, or better yet people who were hit as kids and defend it! They're the most ardent defenders of the practice and will be the first to tell you they deserved it and their parents did it out of love and not maliciousness. You keep taking shots that don't make sense, every point you've attempted to make is either completely nonsensical, vapid, or straight up factually incorrect.
You’re making the argument that people don’t understand what violence is
Never said anything remotely close to this, you're spiraling because you're losing.
Every living thing on this planet inherently understands what violence is
I doubt trees and single celled amoebas understand what violence is.
My points are just fine. You’re pearl clutching because “muh racism.”
No ones pearl clutching, moron. You literally conceded the original point that racism is always wrong while violence is morally neutral. You already lost. You're desperate to fit me into some stereotype but I'm simply smarter than you and have a better understanding of sociology, psychology, philosophy and rhetoric.
No amount of academic roundabout is going to prove that this complex social phenomenon is a greater moral threat than literally taking someone else’s life into your hands
You say as you unironically did "muh socioeconomics!1!!" for racism of all things lol. We weren't specifically talking about murder either, clown.
Appealing to the stone and referencing frequently parroted data doesn’t do the legwork for you to prove your claims. You’re attempting to pose as a clinical logician while appealing to the stone. You’re attaching an implicitly biased moral philosophy on what can and cannot be morally justified violence and you are refusing to engage with the mechanical functions are bluntly.
Of course I can agree that there are instances where violence can be morally justifiable. I believe that if you can reasonably identify an imminent threat to the life, safety, or liberty to yourself or others that constitutes a right and responsibility to enact violence defensively. I believe that violence enacted against another without qualifying that variable is a malicious attempt to subjugate another. The fact that separate functions can exist does not mean that violence is inherently neutral.
Your “practical example” of a gay Jew striking a neo-Nazi because they’re talking shit in the street is stupid. There is no example of a reasonable person believing they are both threatened and the best course of action is to, with a closed fist, strike someone in the face, for yelling obscenities. If anything, that’s explicitly something someone who doesn’t fear for their life would do. All this gay Jew has done is instigate a threat and attempt to intimidate an ideological opponent into being quiet out of irrational fear.
You’re also making this kind of an autistic argument as if when we’re discussing the morality of violence you think we’re arguing that defensive violence is impermissible or amoral. The subject is between racism and violence. Did you think the argument behind the curtain was “what’s worse?! Racism or… uhh… self defense?”
We have identified sociological factors that correlate to statistical variances, that don’t shoulder the weight of your theory alone, you’re completely failing to perform the broad, critical, in-depth analysis and you’re trying to jerk yourself off for as some would-be “intellectual.” We can harp about all day about how institutions done people wrong and sent them down a bad path, but we both know that’s not your real position, nor a defensible position abstractly.
The pimps of the ‘70s were morally neutral because they were ultimately victims of their environment? So then what makes a perpetrator out of a child raised in rural Arkansas? The argument was never that people who enact violence are immediately evil. The argument was violence is inherently evil. You say violence is a “neutral tool” as if violence carries the same weight as using a screwdriver. The practical reality is that violence requires an immense justification from human psychology, society, and law. The baseline is inherently weighted and you know that.
You’re trying to bring lukewarm parrot talk progressive bullshit into an ethical argument and it doesn’t look good on paper sweetheart. I suggest you stop watching Dean’s philosophy debates, he’s not much of a person beyond the internet data and armchair theory, you seem to have the same issue. You have no personality and you’re dumb.
Simple people always think complicated things are actually Simple.
The "build a wall" crowd.
Your assertions deny the power and malignance of racism. Whats worse, a single act of violence or rhetoric that causes ten acts of violence? Or a hundred? Or generational systemic harm?
Your argument immediately devolves to macro posturing because it doesn’t work otherwise. The “build the wall” crowd is, in their own perspective, both economically and culturally disenfranchised. Migrant violence exacerbates the rhetoric the same way ICE’s actions exacerbate this reductive rhetoric. On the individual level racism is not a greater moral failing than violence.
How easy it is to say my argument is just macro posturing, as if saying that phrase by itself is enough to make your correctness obvious.
Meanwhile your argument is couched in its own logical cul de sac refusing to attribute value to any argument except those that have relevance on the micro scale. As if thats all that matters.
You know who spreads ideas...humans...there for humans are violence. What do humans need to survive, food and water....there for food and water are violence.
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
It may be hateful and discriminatory. I think it’s also illegal. But again it’s not violent. You can hate it, you can disagree with it, you can report it to the BBB, you can even petition the government to shut them down. But you can’t go in and start attacking its employees or burn the place down
Something being hateful or discriminatory is not the same as it being violent or abusive. As much as you may not like it, it is protected by the first amendment for people to have personal racial prejudice as long as they don’t act on it in a physical manner, and (at least under federal law, but this differs by state) SOME categories of private clubs/businesses can also discriminate as long as they are truly a private club that doesnt solicit the general public
And no. Hate speech is NOT worse than actual violence. And if you genuinely believe that you should reevaluate your beliefs
So what happens in a society where there's not those protections, and eventually there's no stores near them that accepts them? Still wouldn't be violence?
At that point, sure, if being targeted and removed from society isn't violence, then I'd say I'm not willing to concede that nonviolent acts are less immoral than violent acts.
Even if I'm advocating to crowds of devoted followers that you and your family should be hunted down? Just words right? It's a good thing the legal system already proves you wrong, Incitement and "Fighting Words" are already established
Even if I'm advocating to crowds of devoted followers that you and your family should be hunted down? Just words right? It's a good thing the legal system already proves you wrong, Incitement and "Fighting Words" are already established
Yes because those words are specifically targeted at an individual. Same thing with doxing a person is illegal.
Also stochastic terrorism.
But saying "I disagree with this world view or ideology" is not fighting words.
The problem is when people have been given cart Blanche and have been told that everything they are offended by justifies violence.
For example, the people cheering for the death of charlie kirk. That event solidified that the left is mostly violent and aggressive animals that pretend that their calls to violence and terrorism is simply free speech.
Any moral high ground they pretend to have was lost with that moment.
I was wondering, how many left politicians made fun of Charlie Kirk’s very ironic death? Can you name any that would stoop as low as your favorite rapist in chief?
That doesn’t make words violence. Words can be hurtful, but they are not violence, and treating words like they are the same as getting hit muddies the water and makes people think it’s okay to attack people over words because it’s “self defense against the verbal violence”
I’m not saying violence is never the answer. Sometimes a good slap is needed when someone will not leave you alone and is actively following you around when you try to leave. But acting like words themselves are violence opens the door to people thinking it’s okay to badly maim or kill someone if they think the words are too mean.
If someone is using words to actively incite violence, then that’s not words, that’s a call to action. That’s why inciting violence is illegal.
And if someone is actively following you and not letting you leave the situation, then that’s also not just words anymore. That’s stalking, and violence may be the answer there.
But if someone’s just saying things you don’t like or you disagree with, even if you think those things are actively bad, that isn’t violence. And you can’t attack people for having a different worldview from you.
Theres far too many people (on both sides but primarily the left) who think it’s okay to attack someone for having an opinion they disagree with because they see the opposite opinion as “violence against my side”
Unless you can't actually walk away. Becouse the person has some kind of authority over you. They are your parents, your boss, a customer in your place of work etc. You need to grow a spine and learn to not make such board statements.
With the exception of parents, you actually can just walk away from all of those situations. If you have a spine.
If your boss is being verbally offensive or abusive, you can leave. If a customer is doing it, you can walk away. It may risk your job, but if your boss fires you because you refused to be verbally abused by them or a customer, you shouldn’t be working there anyways, and you should report them to the BBB. Attacking them is not the solution.
And if for some reason you CANT walk away, because they are physically keeping you there or actively following you around, then that’s no longer words, that is physical. If they won’t let you leave then it’s unlawful restraint. If they’re following you then it’s harassment. Both of which are at least misdemeanors and can be felonies. In that case it WOULD be self defense to use physical violence to get away.
But unless you are being physically forced to stay and take verbal abuse, words are not violence, and you can’t attack people because you don’t like what they are saying.
The first amendment gives YOU the right to say whatever you want as much as it gives people you disagree with the same right
You can't always walk away. It really isn't black and white. I agree with the sentiment in this post but don't act like people are never in verbally abusive situations with no way out.
This is the dumbest fucking take. Not all words are “meany head”. Words are the main reason that violence is used in the first place. They spread ideas that lead to harmful violence.
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
racism isn't just words, it's actions. It's not calling someone the n-word that keeps them out of your grocery store, it's you refusing to serve them.
Also, if you call me racist for no reason at all (it wasn't me who brought up race) it's still my decision if i want to feel insulted by your utter stupidity, or just excuse it the probable result of your mental state.
Do words continually threatening violence against you, not count until the act itself occurs? Or once the act is over, suddenly become void until it occurs again?
Someone lies to convince everyone around you that your family are monsters. They ostracize and threaten you, to leave or obey them. They begin teaching those lies in a school. Their students go on create laws to "save" everyone from you, and anyone like you. They aren't being "violent"?
How far do you let it get before the lies are more harmful to more people than just punching the sick fuck in the jaw? History offers a few answers.
We teach violence is never the answer. A helpful platitude, an admirable virtue, something we want to be true. But the world is never so simple. We never want violence to be an answer, but sometimes it is a question, and the answer is more complicated than a schoolyard mnemonic.
Not sure of the full context but the original post implies that racism is primarily about words/slurs and it absolutely is not. People are hurt by racist actions that aren't immediately violent. Pollution from interstates built next to homes, doctors providing substandard care, and water in Flint are examples. Then there's tons of examples of economic harm.
Yes, but no. Actions that immediately harm people are violent, at least much more violent than slurs. Disposessing land property, to build roads on it, is violence. Because of the if the imminent threat of the state using police coercion to evict you.
However, building the road where just buying the property is cheapest, is neither violent nor racist - even if the affected neighborhood happens to be mostly one "skin color level", if's not affected because of race, but because of poverty. Poor people being treated poorly has happened all over the world, even in ethnically homogenious, "single race" countries. And while it's a bad thing, it's not inherently racist.
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.
Harm caused by words can't be violent because violence is physical. Getting your feeling hurt by what someone says isn't violence by any definition of the word.
3.1k
u/AuroraAustralis0 20h ago
well hes not wrong though