Tyranny of the Listener

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Totally - he could have programmed them to kill each other!!

You can Only have free speach as long as you dont offend any one.
Especially the minority groups...

just stop the one who REAL go to far!

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The point is, why ban words and oppress the speaker when it isn't them causing harm? Plenty of logic in it.

And the counter point is that presently people react to words and that can cause the speaker harm. You have already accepted that.

You can say that the listener shouldn't think like that but they are free to think however they like or are you going to limit their freedom to do so?

You even said:

I also agree that people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions, and might react negatively because of them, and that because of them we should be cautious about what we say.

Being cautious about what we say and being forced to be cautious about what we say has the same end and the reason it might even be contemplated is because of the first part of that quote. "people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions" which may lead them to say something the other "people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions" might react negatively to.

Vicious cycle that you can't reason your way out of.

yes of course people react negatively to the speaker. My argument is that they are mistaken for doing so. No, I do not think people are free to oppress others, and I would be suspicious of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I don't understand the rest of your argument.

Edit: I think I understand it now, and I disagree that the end justifies the means.

No one said anything about banning the way people think. Another straw man.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
yes of course people react negatively to the speaker. My argument is that they are mistaken for doing so.

We already agreed on that but that really doesn't change the world we live in.

No, I do not think people are free to oppress others, and I would be suspicious of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I know, which is why your argument is moot.

I don't understand the rest of your argument.

Edit: I think I understand it now, and I disagree that the end justifies the means.

No, my point was that the reason for being cautious about what we say and being forced to be cautious has the same origin.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
yes of course people react negatively to the speaker. My argument is that they are mistaken for doing so.

We already agreed on that but that really doesn't change the world we live in.

No, I do not think people are free to oppress others, and I would be suspicious of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I know, which is why your argument is moot.

I don't understand the rest of your argument.

Edit: I think I understand it now, and I disagree that the end justifies the means.

No, my point was that the reason for being cautious about what we say and being forced to be cautious has the same origin.

My argument is not moot. No one said anything about banning thoughts. Your argument is a straw man.

You said they had the same end, not the same origin.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Yes it is moot: "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."

But that end is to snip things at the origin. What else can being cautious of what you say be?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Yes it is moot: "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."

But that end is to snip things at the origin. What else can being cautious of what you say be?

Growing a thick skin has plenty of practical value. Learning to control emotions has plenty of practical values. Learning rhetoric has plenty of practical value.

I am cautious of people's emotions, yes.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Totally - he could have programmed them to kill each other!!

Hypnosis suggestion works via your subconscious mind. The words are able to reach your subconscious when your conscious mind's filter is not as active...aka...when you enter into an Alpha state. We all do this so many times daily and still seem to be fully conscious. (Your subconscious will not make you a killer, unless you already have that intent hidden subconsciously. For most, such a suggestion would have immediately alerted them into their active beta state and no one will have been harmed.)

In your video, many raised their hands, but not all! I believe it actually proves the OPs post, that the listener is responsible for how they respond to the words. They may claim, they had no choice...as a retired hypnotist I can tell you this is not true. We each are responsible for our own choices, awareness, and responses to others speech. No one can make you respond to something that you don't agree with, even via hypnotism or NLP techniques.

Repressed freedom of speech may be inherently more dire for a populace since that closes off intelligent communication. I have heard words that caused me offense. I did not immediately call foul, for I needed to be more aware why? Why was I really offended? It really does come back to taking responsibility for oneself completely. Now, I have created a communication channel...ask why and try to understand not of myself but of the speaker too? Simply, ask why?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
rowing a thick skin has plenty of practical value. Learning to control emotions has plenty of practical values. Learning rhetoric has plenty of practical value.

True but you can't force people to do any of that and this:

yes of course people react negatively to the speaker. My argument is that they are mistaken for doing so.

has no practical value.

I am cautious of people's emotions, yes.

Good, so should every speaker and if they don't, you are going to rush in and tell the listener "hey stop that, you're mistaken"?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away.

Like leaving a note and walking away.

sorry, i was elaborating on my point. i dont know how long it takes you to compose a symphony of political and philosophical rhetoric, but it takes me a little while. there is no point in me fencing words with you, because your grasp of language is astounding for your dismissal of the "ripple effect", but i persist because i firmly believe in the power to heal a heart or free a soul with a conversation. that open letter to the american public, the australian who lives across from the gap (a location notorious for suicide jumpers) and has saved a hundred lives by talking...just by talking. have you ever saved a life just by sitting down with someone and convincing them they were worth fighting for?

It takes me a long time.

Of course conversation and the act of conversing can heal. But I think you're fair enough to admit that it is ridiculous to suppose Goethe healed me in times of despair when the man has been dead for hundreds of years, or that words glide through the air like little band aids healing wounds. Yes, it's difficult to realize, and painful to admit, but the physics is all wrong. The words, though strung together by the speaker, is registered, understood, and acted upon by the listener.

the thing with communication is that it is supposed to unite us by allowing us to recognize truths or common interests that we all share. unfortunately (and this ties in to the post about programming people to kill) language and communication can be equally divisive. some agencies bypass the audience entirely and just put ideas directly ino the subconscious. we call it subliminal advertising. we dont even realize the information is there, and yet it becomes lodged in the murky depths of our psyche like a neural sleeper cell. my point here is that while the audience is susceptible to hoodwinkery and hysteria, it is exactly that emotional basis which similarly compels them to act or speak with nobility and selflessness as a nation. the tyranny of the listener is, under another circumstance, the testament of the speaker.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
rowing a thick skin has plenty of practical value. Learning to control emotions has plenty of practical values. Learning rhetoric has plenty of practical value.

True but you can't force people do any of that and this:

yes of course people react negatively to the speaker. My argument is that they are mistaken for doing so.

has no practical value.

I am cautious of people's emotions, yes.

Good, so should every speaker and if they don't, you are going to rush in and tell the listener "hey stop that, you're mistaken"?

I agree you cannot force people to think certain ways, and no one is saying otherwise.

It has plenty of practical value. If one values truth, being wrong or mistaken is problematic, and one might take the steps to correct it.

What I advise is to stop the classical conditioning involved in teaching children to fear their own thoughts when encountering the thoughts of others. But I've explicitly stated this already, and didn't mention once rushing in and doing anything.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.

Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.

like dropping a gun in the middle of a playground and walking away.

Like leaving a note and walking away.

sorry, i was elaborating on my point. i dont know how long it takes you to compose a symphony of political and philosophical rhetoric, but it takes me a little while. there is no point in me fencing words with you, because your grasp of language is astounding for your dismissal of the "ripple effect", but i persist because i firmly believe in the power to heal a heart or free a soul with a conversation. that open letter to the american public, the australian who lives across from the gap (a location notorious for suicide jumpers) and has saved a hundred lives by talking...just by talking. have you ever saved a life just by sitting down with someone and convincing them they were worth fighting for?

It takes me a long time.

Of course conversation and the act of conversing can heal. But I think you're fair enough to admit that it is ridiculous to suppose Goethe healed me in times of despair when the man has been dead for hundreds of years, or that words glide through the air like little band aids healing wounds. Yes, it's difficult to realize, and painful to admit, but the physics is all wrong. The words, though strung together by the speaker, is registered, understood, and acted upon by the listener.

the thing with communication is that it is supposed to unite us by allowing us to recognize truths or common interests that we all share. unfortunately (and this ties in to the post about programming people to kill) language and communication can be equally divisive. some agencies bypass the audience entirely and just put ideas directly ino the subconscious. we call it subliminal advertising. we dont even realize the information is there, and yet it becomes lodged in the murky depths of our psyche like a neural sleeper cell. my point here is that while the audience is susceptible to hoodwinkery and hysteria, it is exactly that emotional basis which similarly compels them to act or speak with nobility and selflessness as a nation. the tyranny of the listener is, under another circumstance, the testament of the speaker.

I agree with that. As I stated in the OP, Gorgias the sophist thought words had a narcotic effect on the body. Often, the speaker is just as superstitious as the listener. Bullies think their words cause harm as much as those bullied by them do. Not only could an education that taught this arm the audience against sophistry, but it could also disarm the bullies and the sophist.

There are people who can defend against subliminal advertising, rhetoric, political pandering and sophistry. This is a learned trait, and we should be learning it.

a reply to: CynConcepts

That's right. The theory that words can have detrimental affects, or induce certain feelings, is falsified when they do not. There has to be a better explanation.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I agree you cannot force people to think certain ways, and no one is saying otherwise.

Didn't say that anyone had said otherwise. I'm just pointing that out as the reason the argument is moot.

It has plenty of practical value. If one values truth, being wrong or mistaken is problematic, and one might take the steps to correct it.

One doesn't need to do this.

Guess we are not going to agree on the meaning of practical either.

What I advise is to stop the classical conditioning involved in teaching children to fear their own thoughts when encountering the thoughts of others. But I've explicitly stated this already, and didn't mention once rushing in and doing anything.

Wow, right over your head.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I'm glad you wrote that. You've seen through the sophistry to the philosophy.


This forum and social media in general has many examples of emotionally-driven sophists, those who wish to emotionally manipulate others with words because they themselves are emotionally manipulated by words. There are some examples in this very thread. There is no body language, no shared environment, just reading, so they strain themselves in sophistry to self-advance themselves, with little to no actual effect. They don't want to talk or debate, they want agreement and acceptance. Their "Eros" is in themselves and their own self-advancement, with little care for others or the quality of their community.

I think this might be true, though, I am not sure it is always done with little care for others or the quality of their environment. People may have multiple motives or intents that tend to get in each others way.

They could be concerned about their society and others, and also have very personal individual concerns as well, which make their efforts to help others sometimes ....ineffective, or counter-productive.

I feel hesitant to condemn the usage of emotionally driven rhetoric, because I know we have an equally strong sense of logic and structure, which can be used to pull people in just as easily , which can be provoked for self-serving reasons too.

In an ideal scenario, a person would have to develop and become adept in both emotion and thought within themselves, to be less easily influenced.


What I tend to dislike in the emotional driven rhetoric is when it focuses on the most base and strong emotions- that is, when it provokes the strong polarization of good/evil, hate/love, peace/war, etc.
If emotions were colors, it would be like claiming the world is black and white, or red and blue, knowing you will provoke listeners to see exactly that.

I don't mind art and poetry, and emotions can be neat to explore and experience through language - I don't want to disparage that. I am under no illusion that my intellect is separate from my emotions and that I am (or anyone is) entirely objective. Studies have proven we aren't completely -ever.

But I object to the dumbing down effect , and the catastrophic effects on a community, of that crude and vulgar method of persuasion.

We might not ever get to that ideal of being highly adept at working with our emotions and thoughts, but this kind of stuff actually moves people away from that.

All that said, I don't suggest such emotionally driven rhetoric should be banned or anything. But it is something that I will object to and try to expand in public discourse.

a reply to: daskakik

Didn't say that anyone had said otherwise. I'm just pointing that out as the reason the argument is moot.

You suggested I wanted to or was implying that I wanted to limit people's freedoms to think in that way as a condition of telling them they were mistaken. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

One doesn't need to do this.

Guess we are not going to agree on the meaning of practical either.

One doesn't need not to do it either.

Wow, right over your head.

Or you make little sense, one or the other.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You suggested I wanted to or was implying that I wanted to limit people's freedoms to think in that way as a condition of telling them they were mistaken. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

No I wasn't. Don't be a tyrannical reader.

One doesn't need not to do it either.

Point was that unless everyone does it, things will remain "speaker beware".

Or you make little sense, one or the other.

More speaker bashing!!!

Before you try to use me as an example, none of the above is a result of getting emotional. Just a couple of chances to try and make some funnies.

A serious reply to the last one. I thought it was obvious from my post that the point was that, even if you are correct about tyrannical listeners, there isn't much you can do with that.

a reply to: daskakik

No I wasn't. Don't be a tyrannical reader.

"You can say that the listener shouldn't think like that but they are free to think however they like or are you going to limit their freedom to do so? "

Sound familiar?

More speaker bashing!!!

Before you try to use me as an example, none of the above is a result of getting emotional. Just a couple of chances to try and make some funnies.

A serious reply to the last one. I thought it was obvious from my post that the point was that, even if you are correct about tyrannical listeners, there isn't much you can do with that.

I don't think you're being emotional. I think we're just having fun. I hope you feel the same.

My point is there is much we can do, and there are ways to curb one's superstitions through learning and practice, if one was so inclined and interested to do so.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
"You can say that the listener shouldn't think like that but they are free to think however they like or are you going to limit their freedom to do so? "

Sound familiar?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question. We both know that the answer is no, which leaves the whole thing in the hands of people who might never even think about the topic.

My point is there is much we can do, and there are ways to curb one's superstitions through learning and practice, if one was so inclined and interested to do so.

You keep going back to what one can do and I keep pointing at that no matter what one does, it is insignificant in the larger scheme of things.

When others riot over something someone said you can say, "those people are mistaken". I can say, "they should have known better" and we could both be right.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

OH MY GOD, I love that guy.