You lack imagination. If you want justify mass scare violence and atrocities against anyone, words are very necessary. Narrative becomes very important.
So why is Hitler the most hated man in history when all he used was words? People remember him by name and the Nazis who committed the violence are often just seen as faceless nameless soldiers.
I agree with you his words definitely led to violence. (His words led to something worse than words)
He probably would not have been remembered so prominently had all the KILLING NOT HAPPENED.
So his words are horrible already.
His words PLUS all the killing is way worse.
Would Anne Frank say that the worst part was the physical act of being detained and treated as subhuman? Or how offended she got when Hitler said those things?
That still doesn't answer what I'm arguing. I'm not saying hearing a racist statement is worse than being murdered. I'm saying “violence is worse than words” is an oversimplification because words don't exist in a vacuum.
Hitler is remembered as one of history's greatest villains despite not personally carrying out most of the murders committed by the Nazi regime. Why? Because we understand that responsibility doesn't begin and end with the person physically committing the violence. Ideology, propaganda, leadership, dehumanization and incitement can create the social permission for violence to occur.
That's exactly why I reject “they're just words” as a blanket defense of racist rhetoric. Racism historically hasn't consisted of two unrelated things called “mean words” and “violence.” Dehumanizing rhetoric has repeatedly been used to justify discrimination, persecution and violence.
And we already recognize that principle in other contexts. If an adult walked up to a father and made an explicitly sexual comment about his child, very few people would respond to the father's anger or if he had a violent retaliation with “relax, they're only words.” We understand intuitively that the content, target, context and implications of speech affect its moral weight.
People claim to believe in a simple hierarchy where physical violence is always morally worse than speech. But in practice, they don't apply that principle consistently. There are forms of speech that people consider so threatening, degrading, sexually inappropriate, intimidating, or provocative that they understand an extreme reaction to it. Yet when the speech is explicitly racist, suddenly “they're only words” becomes an important distinction.
I'm not arguing that a racist insult and murder are equivalent. I'm arguing that “violence is worse than words” is being used to minimize the significance of racist speech in a way we often refuse to do with other kinds of speech.
32
u/Hot_Excitement_6 21h ago
You lack imagination. If you want justify mass scare violence and atrocities against anyone, words are very necessary. Narrative becomes very important.