Never agree or apologize when someone is making this
statement or arguing from this perspective. To give here would cede linguistic
ground and provide a path to erode the first amendment right to free speech.
People can use words offensively, crudely, and can say
hateful things but with a few minor exceptions (such as direct credible
threats) they are not violence.
I define violence in this blog post in the most common use
of the word meaning, “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt,
damage, or kill someone or something.”
The Monopoly on
Violence
The theory of the Monopoly on Violence is that the state,
through a process of legitimation, is the only entity that can claim
legitimated use of physical force. It is a more complex theory and you can find
more in Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan
and more recently Max Weber’s essay Politics
as a Vocation, but for now this quick definition will do.
If the state has a monopoly on violence, they are the ones
who can regulate its use, or rather state officials are the ones who will
control its use. If we accept the idea that words are violence than we are
being asked to accept that the state has a monopoly on the use of them.
This is a round-a-bout way of saying that the state should
be able to control what people say. This idea was presented briefly in a talk
between Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt (here). To make the claim
that words are violence is to say that some ideas are violence. Part of how we
think about things is that we talk about them, but if we are not allowed to do
that then we lose the natural right to our own ideas formed by interaction with
other people through speech.
Words are NOT violence.
The Self-Defense
Justification
If we again accept that words are violence than we also have
to assume that you are allowed to defend yourself from this violence up to and
including the use of force.
This would mean that you have the legal and moral justification
for hurting someone with force who is saying something you do not like. This is
where the Punch A Nazi meme comes from and how groups like Antifa justify their
use of force.
Hate speech would be considered violence and could be met
with violence. The biggest flaw in this sort of thinking is that each
individual has a different idea of what hate is. Some people believe saying
there are biological differences between men and women are hateful, even if it
is backed up by biology and human experience.
This line of thinking just allows people to use force against
those they do not like or agree with all while giving them the ability to live
with themselves.
Words are NOT violence.
When you are on social media or having conversations in the
world listen to what other people are saying. If they try to start from a
position of words can cause harm or something of that sort you should
immediately reject their position. That is not to say words cannot be
dangerous, they certainly can be, but they are dangerous like a car or gun is
dangerous, but words and speaking them is never violence.
If you consider words violence then you must allow the state,
and by proxy state officials, to hold the monopoly on the use of words. You
must also allow for the use of force against people speaking words that are
considered violence. I know I have said this a few times, but I feel that it
cannot be said enough.
Words are NOT violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment