"Thing that is not violence is violence."
Yes, language is evolving, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. But the idea that you can use words in whichever way you want, and any misunderstanding is the listener's problem, is just shitting at the idea of communication, and nothing but a thinly veiled power grab.
The reality is that when you're in power, you can use words in whichever way you want. This is what power means. Only now has is become so obvious that people can't help but notice.
Without strict controls over who is and isn’t allowed in our culture we’re left with a “at your feet or at your throat” predicament. Subversive individuals are death to a culture (the thing Popper was referring to in the paradox of tolerance - you have to draw the line at life or death, not simply because you disagree). Trust is everything.
Popper was an idiot and his "Paradox Of Tolerance" can only lead to tolerance becoming the only permissible value and therefore decline, since tolerance is the absence of values. His university colleagues held him in such disregard that they threatened to quit unless he was cast out. Truly the patron saint of midwits and leftist.
It's a topic very dear to our hairy little monkey hearts.
Note: as a non-native speaker, I have no idea what is problematic about the word "spade". I have only ever seen it to mean either a tool for digging or a type of sword, but I will take them at their word that it does have some other meaning.
Or maybe it's that it's homophonous with 'spayed', language resists easy categorization.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-sen...
"Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of 'a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.'
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses 'enhanced potential pandemic pathogen' research, which it defined as 'research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.'"
The research funded was forbidden under the old definition, and so they just changed the definition after they did the research.
Also, the assault example may be valid in your jurisdiction, but in mine it isn't assault but threats of violence. additionally, the threat must be made in a way that is threatening.
Your example, using my local laws, doesn't make sense.
I really wish people would address the content of a discussion instead of what they want to be discussing.
I don't know what laws you are talking about because do not define them, nor your locality.
Regardless, there is a 'for instance' in my reply, and you addressed that specific notion instead of the core.
don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
It's not a logical framework, its an ideological weapon used to shutdown competing ideas with nonsense like these blacklists. The question is if have the capacity to recognize that about your own reasoning when you get it lobbed back at you, or if you will simply declare it as the specious noise making of the 'anti woke crew' because it invalidates your position without any chance at coming to an agreement, because it immediately classifies any contradictory thinking as violent and evil without having to make a logical argument.
Weird how that works.
If you think that's unreasonable maybe judge you own behaviour - your words can be violence and every time you open your mouth to declare other people' words violence, you open the door for it to happen to you. so I did it, and you had nothing to say except to declare it bad faith, which I agree with, except I think your argument about assault is also in bad faith, and treat you the same.
You talk about plans like I control you or other people. I don't. I can only show you a mirror of yourself and hope you snap yourself out of the anti discourse patterns you exhibit but dislike in others. The plan is only to treat people who decry words as violence the same way they treat others and hope they learn the error of their way by having to contend with their own ideological weapons turned against them.
If words are violence why does anyone need to listen to anyone? I didn't kill discussion - your opinion decries discussion as violence. How can we have reasonable conversation in a framework where one side decries the other side's words as violence? It's not possible. It's not a framework for conversation, its just a tool to shut up people who you disagree with.
You keep going on about how I am doing something to make words into violence yet you have not addressed that I asked you for any example of my doing anything like this.
Your stonewalling is absolutely shutting down discussion and if that is your tactic you have succeeded. I really do hope you have a plan because at the end of this if you and the other extremes have their way we will be stuck on two sides with no way to have any kind of productive talk at all about anything.
Acting like toddlers doesn't solve problems.
the first post of yours I replied to has a false equivalence between assault without violence (basically uttering threats) and words being violence. I referenced it in my last post - how I thought it was an outright argument in bad faith because it ignores the details of what that means.
> I really do hope you have a plan because at the end of this if you and the other extremes have their way we will be stuck on two sides with no way to have any kind of productive talk at all about anything.
I just live in the world I don't dictate it. If you want to argue words are violence and then say I'm the toddler because I treat you like you propose treating others, we're now in the same 'you lack the ability to self reflect' stage we were when this started.
dont declare discourse violence and then act offended when people don't take you as a good faith participant in discourse. You're the one who can't handle other people's words effects on your emotions, so declared words violence. Who is the toddler there?
I responded to "Thing that is not violence is violence." by stating that words can be considered violent in some cases, for instance assault requires no physical contact. You take that to mean whatever you want, but don't accuse me of a false equivalence when what I said was literally true.
> I just live in the world I don't dictate it.
You are in total control of how you respond to things. And you stuck to a bad tactic because you refuse to acknowledge that it doesn't do anything but shut down rational communication, then accuse me of lack of self-awareness. The irony is palpable.
Anyway, I can tell you are the type of person that even if you know you are standing on a bad position you will not back down, so I will go ahead and let you have the last word, which I am sure is going to be some kind of re-affirmation that it is my fault for making you act like this. Good day.
they can be considered assault under very specific circumstances but not violence, which has a meaning.
>but don't accuse me of a false equivalence when what I said was literally true.
your false equivelance is to equate the idea that some specific circumstances speech can be considered assault, therefore we must consider the idea that any words can be violence. it is on its face a false equivalence.
Similarly one can declare that buying illegal goods can be a crime in specific circumstances, therefore a list of which items to not buy in a grocery store might reasonably also stop you from committing crimes, right? So now we can restrict what you can purchase anywhere because we can imagine a tangential and unrelated situation where exchanging money for a good might be illegal.
And that is even a stronger case than one you made, because it at least says that illegal acts are illegal, rather than saying 'falls under the statute of assault in some jurisdictions' rather than actually arguing whether it is violence or not.
It's a ridiculous false equivalence
>Anyway, I can tell you are the type of person that even if you know you are standing on a bad position you will not back down, so I will go ahead and let you have the last word, which I am sure is going to be some kind of re-affirmation that it is my fault for making you act like this. Good day.
I'm not acting like anything. I'm merely using your 'logic' on you. if speech can be violence in any case because it might be assault in a specific case, your speech can be violence, and you might make me a victim with your utterances and false equivalence. In fact your speech itself might not matter - only my feeling of fear from hearing it.