[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I'm arguing a cultural perspective.

Edit:

Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.

[schoen]

I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence. To me, the judge's "job" you mention is part of that.

This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence.

I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can understand the dangers of speech without minimizing and dismissing them.

[redbar0n]

Distinguishing speech from violence is not to dismiss the potential for speech to cause hurt feelings.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> hurt feelings

This is an example of how the violence of speech is often minimized and dismissed. Causing hurt feelings is violence, particularly doing so intentionally.

[redbar0n]

I did not dismiss speech’s potential to cause hurt feelings, I acknowledged and affirmed it. It is not to be taken lightly. Yet, we need an effective demarcation between speech and physical action, where resorting to physical action is deemed even more severe than words. So which one do you propose?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> So which one do you propose?

I've used an example in this thread: "physical violence". That shit ain't hard, just stop saying speech can't be violence when it obviously can be.