pull down to refresh
107 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Dec \ on: 91 percent of College Students Say "Words can be Violence" (Reason, JD Tuccille) Politics_And_Law
The headline is a little exaggerated. The exact poll question was something like:
And it was like 9% of people selected 5. People tend to choose moderate options in surveys, so 91% is a stretch.
However, the headline is directionally correct in the sense that too many young people think words can be violence. Something like 49% selected 1 or 2.
yeah, that's still entirely disastrously fucked... the number selecting 1 or 2 should be a rounding error -- some clinically insane antifa person, but really nobody else.
reply
A lot depends on how one defines violence. Many dictionaries describe it as an act of physical harm, but some sources take a wider definition. If the respondee includes psychological harm in their definition, the results are not too surprising.
This ends up being quite a circular problem, though. What came first, the definition or their interpretation of the definition?
I get the gist of you taking offense at this (but maybe that's a bit of the online persona you've created?), but the day my son commits suicide because of bullying, racism, or any violence acted on him through words, I won't give a fuck about how one defines violence and I'll go after the perpatrator of said violence. Until then, I'll make sure to teach my son not to let him get affected by words, as indeed, they are not direct sources of physical violence.
EDIT: the last paragraph is written with OP in mind, not @SimpleStacker.
reply
I think one major difference between physical and psychological harm is that physical harm is much more straightforward to observe and verify, whereas psychological harm is much harder to do so. Thus, what should be considered as a legitimate response to hurtful speech needs to be much more cautious and moderated than for physical violence.
reply
I agree.
Yes, everything is on a case-by-case basis for me. Never enjoy much reading blanket statements.
I guess @denlillaapan's black/white takes without much nuance always ruffle my feathers. Which is probably their (!) desired outcome~~
reply
Definitely not a case-by-case basis (which is a stupid way of saying "everything goes... sometimes") but of course we can conjure up edge cases where the main, default assessment don't hold.
The important takeaway there isn't that edge cases exist, but that they don't undermine the main rule.
reply
Well no, you're well within ethical bounds to go after your son's bully, in your absolutely horrid and rare(!) example, but not for violence.
And it's not that dictionaries dictate our lives or courts have worked out what is and isn't illegal, it's that we can't coexist or communicate if people pretend words mean things they don't.
More importantly: not everything that's bad and horrible is therefore "violence."
Another nuance: SimpleStacker steps in fron of you and pulls out a sharp knife. Give me your money (well, you know, 🌽). You hand them over and Stacker is on his way. Violence?
Sure. While no punches or stabs delivered, the credible threat of stabs is definitely violence.
Is there an analogy to woke college students feeling unsafe when exposed to "dangerous ideas"? Nope. Is your example of child suicide closer? Sure.
reply