Do you find this kind of technique results in compelling discourse? I don't. Do you want conversations to proceed in fashion where someone makes a point that is grounded in reality and asks a question (at what point does violence not require physical action?) and in reply gets a dishonest quip that does not address the question but seeks to trivialize it?
I don't take their comment as dishonest at all. I take their claim at face value, as you should. It isn't fair to immediately discredit someone when they express a fear of your words becoming ever more violent. I think you should look inward and ask yourself how you can do better with your discourse in the future.
Ah yes, you make complete sense. Forgive me for not realizing that when wading into a comment thread on a submission that is baiting the anti-woke crew to vent that I would be dealing with this. Should have known better.
I didn't design these weapons against critical thinking, I just use them against the people who advocate for them so that we're all on the same level. Your violent words scare me and I think you should self censor your aggression so that others can feel safe.
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.
You aren't using anything against anyone. It is completely transparent what you are doing and the only thing it is effective at is making you look silly. The fact that you think that I am pro-naughty-word-censoring because I brought up a simple comparison and posed a simple question makes your adherence to critical-thinking look hollow since you seem to eschew it. I am happy to be proved wrong by having a thoughtful discussion if you would like, instead of carrying on in the manner we have.
the reason it looks silly is because you're looking in a mirror that's showing a different face, but presenting the same opinions back at you. Of course it looks silly. Of course it looks like lack of critical thinking. Its both of those things - it's modeled after people who think talking is violence if they don't like the speech - it uses the same 'logic' and framework. It will equate this silly list of words to assault and battery uncritically, and can do so with any opinion to shut down discourse.
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.
If you are admitting to purposefully shutting down the ability to have a reasonable conversation then I can't see what you your end-game is here. Do you plan to act unreasonable, call people 'emotional' and say that they are doing things they are not (please point out how I have used any of these tactics or 'ideological weapons') until it is just you, the extremist 'woke' bureaucrats, and other people who refuse to engage in reasonable discourse, having alienated anyone who is not willing to take a blunt ideological position and sit on it with fingers in ears? At that point what then is the plan?
I'm no more shutting down the conversation than someone equating offensive words to uttering threats. By declaring words violence you make sure there can be no conversation, I'm just making sure it's true about everyone's words instead of just what you're comfortable with.
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 are sitting on an ideological horse because you (rightfully) find things like this list of words ridiculous, but this is causing you to act in a way which is counter-productive.
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.
>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.
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?
> the first post of yours I replied to has a false equivalence between assault without violence
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.
>words can be considered violent in some cases, for instance assault requires no physical contact
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.
