When Words Become Violence

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have it all backwards. Words are not agents and are incapable of performing actions. They cannot do anything, let alone "encourage", "incite", "seduce", or otherwise manipulate human beings.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting with your OP, and the previous one you made along the same lines. What's the point of these rambles? Have you been saying nasty things you're now trying to justify? Oh wait I suppose there are no nasty words, silly me.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It is not the words but the force of sound waves shattering your eardrums.

How do you convey words then?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have it all backwards. Words are not agents and are incapable of performing actions. They cannot do anything, let alone "encourage", "incite", "seduce", or otherwise manipulate human beings.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting with your OP, and the previous one you made along the same lines. What's the point of these rambles? Have you been saying nasty things you're now trying to justify? Oh wait I suppose there are no nasty words, silly me.

That’s false. The point of these rambles is to put my thoughts into a solid form. Whatever you or anyone else does with them is up to you.

originally posted by: JarridSinn
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If I become upset with someone and shoot them am I responsible for my actions, and if I did harm to myself because of those same words are they ten responsible for them?
When and why do I take on the responsibility?

Each and every one of us are responsible for our own actions.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have it all backwards. Words are not agents and are incapable of performing actions. They cannot do anything, let alone "encourage", "incite", "seduce", or otherwise manipulate human beings.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting with your OP, and the previous one you made along the same lines. What's the point of these rambles? Have you been saying nasty things you're now trying to justify? Oh wait I suppose there are no nasty words, silly me.

That’s false. The point of these rambles is to put my thoughts into a solid form. Whatever you or anyone else does with them is up to you.

Sorry to be a pain in the arsenal, but you could put your thoughts into solid form without pressing the post button. By doing so you are inviting feedback from other members. The fact is, thoughts, words, and actions are inextricably linked. It is known.

We may be responsible for our own actions in the majority of cases yes. I've had it drilled into me enough times that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. I've realised over the years Murphys law is no exception. But accidents do happen, not just with our actions but sometimes with our words too.

Anyway I'm starting to ramble, but you should look into MKultra or even the general neuro linguistic programming stuff, I believe 'trigger' words were born out of the MKultra project originally.

Sure words have no power of their own, but it's the meaning, context, and intent behind them which do, and as a consequence make things happen.

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have it all backwards. Words are not agents and are incapable of performing actions. They cannot do anything, let alone "encourage", "incite", "seduce", or otherwise manipulate human beings.

Yet this is exactly what you are attempting with your OP, and the previous one you made along the same lines. What's the point of these rambles? Have you been saying nasty things you're now trying to justify? Oh wait I suppose there are no nasty words, silly me.

That’s false. The point of these rambles is to put my thoughts into a solid form. Whatever you or anyone else does with them is up to you.

Sorry to be a pain in the arsenal, but you could put your thoughts into solid form without pressing the post button. By doing so you are inviting feedback from other members. The fact is, thoughts, words, and actions are inextricably linked. It is known.

We may be responsible for our own actions in the majority of cases yes. I've had it drilled into me enough times that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. I've realised over the years Murphys law is no exception. But accidents do happen, not just with our actions but sometimes with our words too.

Anyway I'm starting to ramble, but you should look into MKultra or even the general neuro linguistic programming stuff, I believe 'trigger' words were born out of the MKultra project originally.

Sure words have no power of their own, but it's the meaning, context, and intent behind them which do, and as a consequence make things happen.

Don’t be sorry. You’ve already admitted your own reasons for producing your words: to seduce, to incite, but they fail to do so. That’s good enough for me.

your argument is similar to this:

one should not blame anything beyond one's self for their situation

vs.

one should blame outer circumstances
-------

both are true depending on the lens you viewing with.
also your mood. if you are in the mood to give up hopes on a god saving you, and stop imagining about god and just act from your own mind, then the first line will empowerize you.
it's somewhat of a supportive thing where you focus on yourself and your own power.

the next line also depends if you are more in the mood for it. do you see the reason of why you are how you are. you didn't choose red hair that got you discriminated against, etc.

now one of the things you are attacking in the OP is people being too sensitive in your opinion to statues.

this is where it gets interesting, cause your whole point should be "one should not be weak/have vulnerability" but it is hypocritical because

they want the statues down out of the irritation of them being there
you claim this irritation is a weakness or "inner VIOLENCE"
yet you express exact said irritance that you are specifically going against, by them taking them down.

you see it's 2 sides of benefit mutually exclusive side of the coin.

a reply to: makalit

I'd put money on OP telling you you don't know what hypocrisy means.

All these, and more, arguments have been offered to him before. He just doesn't want to go any deeper than the black and white argument that words have no effect on matter.

a reply to: daskakik

I think hypocrisy is experiencing irritation at others' irritation.
It's your mind taking in said irritation, processing it, and needing to post about how it irritates one self to see it.
But then saying they didn't make him feel like that, he chose to.

And then missing that other people, that he has been irritated with, ALSO, 'chose' to feel irritated just as he.

a reply to: makalit

I just put that out there because he has done it before.

He will probably just say he was never irritated just like when hiddenlight tried to rile him up earlier in the thread.

a reply to: makalit

You don’t know what hypocrisy means.

Well we have a seer and a comedian.

a reply to: makalit

My argument is that the most privileged among us risk destroying the tools of expression for the sake of maintaining their own solipsism. It isn’t about blame but liberation from a deep-seeded superstition, and the boot-lickers who tend in that direction.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
i think you are looking for assurance rather than more conflict on the matter.. however you being against their as percieved by you 'solipsism' is just your own, coined by you, 'solipsism'. And having those statues taken out would equally be a tool of their own expression..

just get to the knitty grits of it, something is becoming modernly offensive to some but you think they should overlook it and respect what it initially was.

here we have the landmark of the man who started the foundation of both canada and america, and suddenly 300 years later people want to take it down because he also had slave labour and supported the notion of slave labour.

it's 2 conflicting view points and I think it would get somewhere if you addressed that specifically
-------++---_++++-----
not to mention the coalition he lead took the land of many aboriginees
and then it goes further.. should all the nations in the world apologize for the war and land they took..
it's strange that something much much more deep-rooted in chaos such as taken lands from war gets somewhat brushed over
yet something much lighter such as forced lifestyles, without killings or anything, is a big issue

perhaps just the african presence in the united states culture. seems to garner more fame than aboriginees and thus 'presence' to push attaining of want


maybe the aboriginees are just too scarred and in pain, with too much anger, that they understand taking down a statue is light to the karma they feel is just..

a reply to: makalit

You see that when OP says things like "boot-lickers who tend in that direction" instead of "people who tend in that direction" he proves your point. His irritation comes through, although he will try to play the Spock role. You nailed it earlier, he wouldn't need to press "send" if he just wanted to solidify his thoughts. You can do that in any text editor.

He wants to project it and he is walking the razor's edge trying to put his feelings out there and still seem aloof, but that is his problem. You learn to disregard his own solipsism after a while.

a reply to: makalit

Bootlickers and also liars who pretend falsity is fact. Beware; when you take their only weapon, they slowly begin to realize that they had little strength to begin with.

The Buddha’s of Bamiyan were blown to smithereens by superstitious fundamentalists. The Taliban was offended and felt that the only way to cure that was to destroy what they believed caused their offence. Are the Buddha’s themselves offensive? What they are offended by is the result of their own solipsism, not the statues themselves. Now they are gone forever, just so that for a moment a fundamentalist could have his offence soothed.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The Buddha’s of Bamiyan were blown to smithereens by superstitious fundamentalists.

I do believe the point was that they were built by superstitious fundamentalists and another group of superstitious fundamentalists blowing them could only upset superstitious fundamentalists, i.e. anyone feeling loss for these pieces of soft stone. Why did you bring them up?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: makalit
The Buddha’s of Bamiyan were blown to smithereens by superstitious fundamentalists. The Taliban was offended and felt that the only way to cure that was to destroy what they believed caused their offence. Are the Buddha’s themselves offensive? What they are offended by is the result of their own solipsism, not the statues themselves. Now they are gone forever, just so that for a moment a fundamentalist could have his offence soothed.

What is the difference between your thought and mine. I feel they are both great, but different directions.
For example if you made this because of my astrology post seeing me complain (which you didn't) then you posted this is a rival type comeback to show your own skills which are superior but different. So we are like 2 legendary pokemon fighting. I just want to know what is the difference between your style and mine. What do I stand for?

I think we both great and powerful. I can get your concept. But if we are comparing qualities, what do I have that is comparable, if not writing intellect.

as per your response

Now they are gone forever,

But this is no different than any other human action. They took them out. But it's no different than creatively making a rock pattern in your garden. It's just an action.

The complaintant here is you!
You are complaining for disapproval.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

words are only damaging to the ego or violent to the ego

to the human being , unaided by ego , words are like water on a ducks back