can words be violent?

[dead0man]

loaded and poisoned

[Sirius_]

A word can not directly cause physical harm or destruction, nor can a word possess the quality of being “violent”

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, and the identification of words with violence is one of the more disturbing trends in recent years.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     No, and the identification of words with violence is one of the more disturbing trends in recent years.

Amen

[Dereich]

Can a fist be violent? How about a gun or a tank? Words fit in the same category. All can be used as tools to cause harm to another person.

If you're defining "violent" as nothing more than as a state of mind ("intending to cause harm") then clearly only something alive could be violent...but its a purely semantic argument and I don't really see the point in making it.

[Virginiá]

I guess it depends on who is saying it. In North Korea, Kim Jong-Un's words could definitely be considered violent, in the sense that a certain combination of them can quickly lead to mass casualties or brutal treatment in a "work" camp.

But are some inherently violent? No. Not really.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

fite me irl

[Lechasseur]

     No, and the identification of words with violence is one of the more disturbing trends in recent years.

[world.execute(me)]

Can a fist be violent? How about a gun or a tank? Words fit in the same category. All can be used as tools to cause harm to another person.

If you're defining "violent" as nothing more than as a state of mind ("intending to cause harm") then clearly only something alive could be violent...but its a purely semantic argument and I don't really see the point in making it.

[Anna Komnene]

If you were a child and your parent called you disgusting filth that deserves to die on a regular basis, I doubt you would much care about the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

If you were a child and your parent called you disgusting filth that deserves to die on a regular basis, I doubt you would much care about the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

Exactly. And it's no different when some people say that certain minorities deserve to die on a regular basis.

Plus, there really isn't that many steps between saying "Go back to your country!" to someone and then knocking them senseless.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If you were a child and your parent called you disgusting filth that deserves to die on a regular basis, I doubt you would much care about the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

     The law cares about the distinction, and with good reason. The former interferes with the person's free exercise of their natural rights, whereas the latter does not. Sure the latter can cause someone to feel bad or become depressed, but if that's our standard then any kind of harsh or critical language would constitute an act of violence, which unreasonably debases the word.

[parochial boy]

If you were a child and your parent called you disgusting filth that deserves to die on a regular basis, I doubt you would much care about the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

     The law cares about the distinction, and with good reason. The former interferes with the person's free exercise of their natural rights, whereas the latter does not. Sure the latter can cause someone to feel bad or become depressed, but if that's our standard then any kind of harsh or critical language would constitute an act of violence, which unreasonably debases the word.

That's the thing though, that term "natural rights", in reality, a human being's "natural" rights are only really what society accepts them to be, rather than being something inherently ordained by nature.

The kind of sustained, psychological and emotional abuse very much does cause signiifcantly more harm than a punch up outside a bar; and if the law, or society, don't see it as being at least an equivalent level of violence than that is probably more down to the legal or social norms not keeping pace.

There is a quantative difference between a simpl act of harsh/critical language and between psychological abuse - just as much as there is between insulting someone and physically attacking them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If you were a child and your parent called you disgusting filth that deserves to die on a regular basis, I doubt you would much care about the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

     The law cares about the distinction, and with good reason. The former interferes with the person's free exercise of their natural rights, whereas the latter does not. Sure the latter can cause someone to feel bad or become depressed, but if that's our standard then any kind of harsh or critical language would constitute an act of violence, which unreasonably debases the word.

That's the thing though, that term "natural rights", in reality, a human being's "natural" rights are only really what society accepts them to be, rather than being something inherently ordained by nature.

The kind of sustained, psychological and emotional abuse very much does cause signiifcantly more harm than a punch up outside a bar; and if the law, or society, don't see it as being at least an equivalent level of violence than that is probably more down to the legal or social norms not keeping pace.

There is a quantative difference between a simpl act of harsh/critical language and between psychological abuse - just as much as there is between insulting someone and physically attacking them.

     Natural rights refers to those things that inhere in people by our nature. Governments can choose not to respect them, but the consequence of that is that those governments' actions should be regarded as unjust.

     I agree that psychological abuse is wrong and should not be tolerated. I missed that that was what Siren was getting at, though I would note that the people who invoke the concept of "words as violence" typically aren't referring to that form of interaction. That aside, I don't see much point in expanding the word "violence" to include this sort of thing; we don't have to call an aggressive act "violent" to agree that people shouldn't engage in it.

[mvd10]

I'm not in prison, so no .

[Torie]

The word violent has more than one meaning, so the answer is obviously yes.

Definition of violent

1 a (1) :marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force a violent attack violent crime The peaceful demonstration turned violent. (2) :showing or including violence violent movies
b :extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage violent storms violent coughing
2 :caused by physical force or violence :not natural a violent death
3 a :emotionally agitated to the point of using harmful physical force became violent after an insult
b :prone to commit acts of violence violent prison inmates
4 a :notably forceful, furious, or vehement a violent argument a violent denunciation
b :extreme, intense violent pain violent colors

[dead0man]

Is that what people mean when they say words can be violent?  Color me confused (and use a violent color to do it).  Why have they never mentioned it this way before?

[All Along The Watchtower]

of course. See: the word certain white men came up with to call the people that they literally owned.

[Frodo]

My goodness, Deado, did my post trigger this?  LOL

[dead0man]

of course. See: the word certain white men came up with to call the people that they literally owned.

right, white men are the only ones smart enough to come with offensive words for "others"...we so smart.

My goodness, Deado, did my post trigger this?  LOL

no, that thread is dumb, not sure why people are even in it.  I get one person telling the OP that the thread is silly, but do we need 15 over 2 weeks?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The FBI thinks so.......lots of "hate crimes" charges get tacked on when violent words are found to be written or spoken by the perp.

[Storebought]

Answering this question in the negative contradicts every level of human experience.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Speech can be hurtful and in some cases the harm outweighs the value of free speech, but I do prefer to limit the term "violence" to physical actions.

[RINO Tom]

     No, and the identification of words with violence is one of the more disturbing trends in recent years.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

     No, and the identification of words with violence is one of the more disturbing trends in recent years.

Correct, but I would say that credible threats, extortion, and deliberately inciting violence can be. There's a big difference between hurting feelings and actually saying "go kill whomever" like Charles Manson did. This is fairly easy to discern.
P.S. Hate speech does not exist.