The False Tyranny of Words

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Thinking is a biological process. Believing we are under threat, even if we aren’t will cause stress, etc.

You also said...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
and to finally come to the realization that not only do words do not hurt, they cannot hurt, one can also learn to overcome the tyranny of words which she ultimate places on herself.

Do you not see the confusion here?

his misplaced and sole premise of words cannot hurt is based on physicality or tangible and visual representation of how words hurt.

failing to realize, words affect us in a way we translate as emotions because its an abstract or conceptual way of understanding something we cannot see but but feel.

yes words can be painful, not because its a dagger but we reflect the same emotions as if it were a dagger. our biological response is similar to that of a dagger.


words affects us on a biological and physiological level, because it has affected us at a cognitive level then propagates down to our physical nature; they work in tandem.

...........

now your pretense is that the above is false, or what everyone is trying to convey to you is wrong and you're right; however the very words you are reading are affecting the chemicals in your brain right now triggering heart rate, thoughts and eventually compelling you to reply and reinforce your moot point. :

there are people who go into panic attacks because they were physically hurt from combat and suffer from ptsd, and there are people whom never seen combat but were abused as children verbally and have the same exact panic attacks as a soldier who saw combat.

the stressor is different but the biology responds as if they were both under the same duress.

there are goats where if you scream hard enough around them, they lose control of their limbs, their nerves are physically affected by the scream any person is free to do round them...

the fact that you try to rationalize based on technicalities and your willingness to dismiss any rational arguments bordering on the academic and deflect with non sense, for the sake of defending hate speech is telling.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the fact that you try to rationalize based on technicalities and your willingness to dismiss any rational arguments bordering on the academic and deflect with non sense, for the sake of defending hate speech is telling.

I'm assuming that's not directed at me.

I'm not trying to dismiss rational arguments.
My first post on this thread described myself as a hypocrite who needs to embrace freedom of violence as much as I do freedom of speech to be consistent.

I am trying to rationalise my thought process to defend hate speech however.

The best I can come up with in regards to sticks and stones Vs words is that words are dependent on the society.

A Jewish guy would find Nazi rhetoric offensive whilst a Nazi guy would find it empowering.
Both Jews and Nazi's will respond the same to getting hit with a stick however.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the fact that you try to rationalize based on technicalities and your willingness to dismiss any rational arguments bordering on the academic and deflect with non sense, for the sake of defending hate speech is telling.

I'm assuming that's not directed at me.

I'm not trying to dismiss rational arguments.
My first post on this thread described myself as a hypocrite who needs to embrace freedom of violence as much as I do freedom of speech to be consistent.

I am trying to rationalise my thought process to defend hate speech however.

The best I can come up with in regards to sticks and stones Vs words is that words are dependent on the society.

A Jewish guy would find Nazi rhetoric offensive whilst a Nazi guy would find it empowering.
Both Jews and Nazi's will respond the same to getting hit with a stick however.

no no not towards you.

but your point with the nazi and Jewish is very valid.

ultimately, in either cases, where ever your allegiance lies in terms of nazi propaganda, its all words and speeches which formed whatever movement was formed for the nazis or jews.
words compel the mind no matter how one tries to slice it.
communication is not a separate operative from our everyday actions. its all connected.

and again my point above is very valid as i have seen and experienced this

there are people who go into panic attacks because they were physically hurt from combat and suffer from ptsd, and there are people whom never seen combat but were abused as children verbally and have the same exact panic attacks as a soldier who saw combat. 

the physical effects and our biological responses are the same even though one was physically wounded and the other verbally wounded. trying to bypass the fact that words and communication affects us physically simply to protect people who hurl hate speech and hurt others (non physically) is worrying.

communication affects us physically and mentally , all of our senses are connected physically and mentally.
speech is simply an attempt to convey something we can't define physically, our emotions. and calling them emotions is no less than calling them a scientific name; emotions are simply more abstract since there are no visual or physical lines for us to follow from the mind to the body... but the connection is there nonetheless. its there in every species.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Yeah, like I said I'm a hypocrite here.

I accept 100% that words can be arguably as damaging as physical attacks.
I don't dispute that for a second.

But I also believe that stopping hate speech is stopping the progression of ideas.

Think of what would have been considered hate speech and what wouldn't be 100 years ago.
Had hate speech stopped then ideas could not be challenged and we would not have progressed from then.

Also, if I hate Jamaicans shouldn't I be able to express my views so they can be opposed.
Any ideology that forces people to be dishonest is doomed to fail.

The benefits of freedom of speech clearly outweigh the negatives.
I don't think the benefits of freedom of violence would outweigh the negatives.

a reply to: odzeandennz

When i see someone say that what someone does is "telling" i want to punch something random.

That has to be the most ridiculous ad hom ever used.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yes they were....to the point I followed them. Merely because he also pointed out the same thing as I did in my post shows I did understand the 'initial' point. I failed to follow up on his expansion of it. One can call that a reaction, bu to the initial information communicated. Not the words themselves.

I don't even think we are on the same page. That isn't the words' fault.

You did not understand the initial point of the post with the video yet you reacted to it by replying argumentively.

Like I said, there is no need to apologize. I'm just pointing out that reactions happen and it isn't just to the words.

Of course. If I disagree with a point, I will respond. As you would.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, words are not analogous to land mines and shackles. Such comparisons are indicative of your fear, your superstition, and your ignorance, not reality.

How would you explain placebo's working in medicine?

Surely that's clear proof of words having the ability to physically affect us.
Whether this comparision is a result of my fear, superstition or ignorance is irrelevant.

It's a proven reality.

Beliefs and expectations are powerful. As the theory goes, if I expect the placebo to work, the expectation or belief leads to me adjusting my own body chemistry. It’s true of stress as well. That’s why I would suggest expecting words to cause damage will only lead to damage.

I would counter that expecting words to cause damage can also lead to a counter-offensive to thwart said damage; a call to action.

a reply to: odzeandennz

now your pretense is that the above is false, or what everyone is trying to convey to you is wrong and you're right; however the very words you are reading are affecting the chemicals in your brain right now triggering heart rate, thoughts and eventually compelling you to reply and reinforce your moot point.

My argument is that the above is wrong based on the simplest physics and biology. First, I choose to read your words. Reading is an action I commit, as is understanding and contemplating your written thoughts. After reading them I can’t help but feel pity, but that isn’t because of your words, that is because I am trying to imagine what it must be like to hold such a magical view.

Your words are doing nothing but taking up space, sitting there, waiting for someone to address them. They are powerless, both literally and metaphorically.

You are looking at my expression, and believe yourself affected by it, without attributing any of your bodily responses to your body. That means I control you. I have power over you. You’re something of a slave.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: odzeandennz

now your pretense is that the above is false, or what everyone is trying to convey to you is wrong and you're right; however the very words you are reading are affecting the chemicals in your brain right now triggering heart rate, thoughts and eventually compelling you to reply and reinforce your moot point.

My argument is that the above is wrong based on the simplest physics and biology. First, I choose to read your words. Reading is an action I commit, as is understanding and contemplating your written thoughts. After reading them I can’t help but feel pity, but that isn’t because of your words, that is because I am trying to imagine what it must be like to hold such a magical view.

Your words are doing nothing but taking up space, sitting there, waiting for someone to address them. They are powerless, both literally and metaphorically.

You are looking at my expression, and believe yourself affected by it, without attributing any of your bodily responses to your body. That means I control you. I have power over you. You’re something of a slave.

Is the intent here for you both to trigger each other via words, rather than have a rational debate?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Thinking is a biological process. Believing we are under threat, even if we aren’t will cause stress, etc.

You also said...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
and to finally come to the realization that not only do words do not hurt, they cannot hurt, one can also learn to overcome the tyranny of words which she ultimate places on herself.

Do you not see the confusion here?

No.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Of course. If I disagree with a point, I will respond. As you would.

Sure, it is what we are here to do. I just used your reaction to point out that even people who agree with the op do what it is criticizing.

a reply to: InTheLight

Either way, they are reactions which would not take place without the words being there.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: InTheLight

Either way, they are reactions which would not take place without the words being there.

So what's your point? You wouldn't get similar result with sign language?

The reaction the OP refers to is the desire to ban words. Not to squelch any and all reactions/responses to what words communicate.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That post was asking about the intent. That would be there regardless of the communication medium.

The OP doesn't include that because their argument is reduced to just the "actions" of the words, which is none, to make it work.

a reply to: daskakik

That post was asking about the intent. That would be there regardless of the communication medium.

The OP doesn't include that because their argument is reduced to just the "actions" of the words, which is none, to make it work.

"Intent" doesn't leave the body either. It begins and ends with the one speaking, effecting nothing outside the skin.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Spoken like a true materialist. Ask a court jester or some poets and they'll come up with a whole different answer, rightly so.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Spoken like a true materialist. Ask a court jester or some poets and they'll come up with a whole different answer, rightly so.

Doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is true or false.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Agreed, just like the intent of the post with the video didn't make it to nwtrucker until after they had replied. Still, the reaction wasn't just based on words.

The words describe the intent. The person asking for spare change uses different words than the person robbing someone. A person reacts in accordance to what each set of words, along with everything else around them, are telling them about the situation they are in.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The truth is, that words convey meaning and thus they do convey intent indeed. The funny thing is, that some people are able to read between the lines as well.

Profiling isn't exactly magic, is it?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The truth is, that words convey meaning and thus they do convey intent indeed. The funny thing is, that some people are able to read between the lines as well.

They do not actually convey anything in any realistic way. You provide the words the meaning. They do not provide you the meaning, or else we'd be able to understand languages we've never heard before.