Is there such a thing as violent language?

[fractional slacker]

Can speaking or writing words be a violation of the NAP?

One argument I would like to dismiss is shouting in someone's face. Whether or not you are speaking, invading someone's personal space could be considered a violation of the NAP. The specifics are debatable, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of personal space IMO.

 

The other red herring is the scenario where you do something akin to banging pots and pans next to someone's ear - a clear violation of self ownership, and a use of aggression. That is not what I am referring to as "violent language."

 

The folks dressed in black robes who call themselves the supreme court are hearing a case about violent language.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2014/12/01/when-does-social-media-chatter-become-criminal-previewing-the-supreme-courts-elonis-case/
 

[NotDarkYet]

Interesting question.

 

Could we say that all pro-religious and pro-political statements are violent by implication?

[dsayers]

Language that is used to form a credible threat is in fact the initiation of the use of force. As is any language or other use of a person's senses to harm them.

[HordOfTheFlies]

I'm not sure the words themselves would be a violation.  In universal terms I'd have to ask which words specifically violate and why.  I would only judge based on actions.  According to Wikipedia the NAP includes threats as aggression.  So in that sense I guess speech that is designed to coerce behavior would be considered violent.  There's probably an argument for some standard of reasonableness but I almost wonder if it's possible to argue on action alone.

 

Let's say you are walking down a street and someone in front of you says "If you take another step I'll shoot you".  That's obviously a threat.  I guess the question I would ask is if it is credible.  If you combine the words (the act of communicating intent) with the actions of a person holding a gun and looking menacingly at you then I think it is reasonable to assume the threat is real.  Now change this to a deranged person holding an orange cap gun and I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume the same.  In both cases the words used are the same but the actions of the individuals beyond the words change the context.

 

Of course that's a very silly and contrived example.  I'm just wondering if that line of thinking is valid.  It seems to me that as a general principle it would have to be more than the words that communicate the intent of violence.  I don't know how much more, however.

[dsayers]

Of course that's a very silly and contrived example.

 

I don't think so. I think it does an excellent job of pointing out that words are not inherently violent and that it's the accompanying action that is the initiation of the use of force. I stand corrected.

[fractional slacker]

HordOfTheFlies has hit on a key element - that of interpretation.  It occurred to me the question might need to be refined.

 

If words can be violent, would they be judged by a subjective standard or an objective standard?

[FriendlyHacker]

There's no such thing as violent language, so fuck off the planet before I bust a cap in your ass.


According to UPB, language is violent if used in a credible threat against someone's life.

[june]

HordOfTheFlies has hit on a key element - that of interpretation.  It occurred to me the question might need to be refined.

 

If words can be violent, would they be judged by a subjective standard or an objective standard?

that depends on how you judge typical instances of violence (physical, etc).

 

if you judge typical violence objectively, then words - if they are also violent - must also be judged objectively.

[dsayers]

According to UPB, language is violent if used in a credible threat against someone's life.

 

But as HordOfTheFlies pointed out, words alone cannot make a threat credible. There has to be an attached behavior, which is the initiation of the use of force.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

What about passive, manipulative language used to hide violence?

 

Say I know that our man around the corner who's going to jump out and threaten to shoot you is there, and I (intentionally) quite casually, politely, and positively get you go to around that corner, knowing exactly what is going to happen? That is, talking about something completely different which gives you the idea to go around the corner yourself, without me even suggesting it. At face value, the language is the absolute opposite of violent. However, the intent isn't.

 

What about someone who knowingly uses sophist techniques to manipulate you under their control. There is no physical threat, outright or otherwise, but the sophist is still able to dominate you. While the quick answer to this may be "not violent", remember that most sophists will escalate the instant you start questioning and calling out their bullshit. If the sophist never crosses the line of physical violence, is this still violent language? Dunno.

 

I've been thinking about this for awhile now and I've been formulating the hazy idea that there are discrete levels of violence; direct physical violence being the only line which is easily discernible. Other than that one, I don't seem to be able to find where to draw the line between different types.

[dsayers]

What about someone who knowingly uses sophist techniques to manipulate you under their control.

 

You're referencing something other than words. Also, self-knowledge and rational thought protect against being manipulated. People who lack these were victimized by their parents. It's a hard line to draw. I've argued before that outside of the parent-child relationship, it's logically impossible for one party to be more responsible for another person's actions than they are themselves. So while it may be a dick move to take advantage of somebody who lacks self-knowledge and rational thought, it's not the initiation of the use of force.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

You're referencing something other than words.

 

I don't really know what you mean by that. "I'm going to shoot you!" references something other than words as well. In fact, words that reference themselves are generally in the realm of discussions on grammar, yea?

 

Also, self-knowledge and rational thought protect against being manipulated. People who lack these were victimized by their parents. It's a hard line to draw.

 

I'm aware of that. Things like self-defense training and/or weapons training can protect against being physically attacked, too. But what about the parent who trains/imprints his child to self-attack, and continues to press that button throughout the child's adult life?

 

 

I've argued before that outside of the parent-child relationship, it's logically impossible for one party to be more responsible for another person's actions than they are themselves. So while it may be a dick move to take advantage of somebody who lacks self-knowledge and rational thought, it's not the initiation of the use of force.

 

Totally agree on the first part. I'm hazy and foggy on the second. Like I mentioned before, I get the feeling that there are levels of violence, where there is an obvious discrete line at the initiation of physical force, a less obvious line at the initiation of sophistry used unaware (sophistry used with awareness clearly being more "violent", if that turns out to be the correct word to use), and all sorts of more vague lines in between.

[dsayers]

I don't really know what you mean by that. "I'm going to shoot you!" references something other than words as well.

 

If you said to me right now, "I'm going to shoot you!" it would not be a credible threat. Those WORDS mean nothing amid circumstances where you'd likely not be able to carry them out even if you meant them for logistical reasons at the very least. Now if you said those words to me while in the same room as me while pointing a gun at me, those words would be a credible threat. But it would be the pointing the gun at me that's the initiation of the use of force, not any words. Or what if we were in the same room and you said those same words while chuckling and offering me a hug. The words don't match the behaviors and the behaviors are not the initiation of the use of force, so the words couldn't be.

[shirgall]

As for words being violent, the legal standard (which seems universalizable) for a credible threat requires the additional element of an initial action to carry out that threat. The threat does not have to be realized, but words (and often body language) are seldom enough. A credible threat is necessary to charge someone with assault as it used to establish jeopardy. (The other elements are ability and opportunity.)

 

I'm boiling it down a lot here, and I am not a lawyer. Check out http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-assault.html for deeper discussion.

[june]

I'm aware of that. Things like self-defense training and/or weapons training can protect against being physically attacked, too. But what about the parent who trains/imprints his child to self-attack, and continues to press that button throughout the child's adult life?

the child, as an individual, is still the one making their own decisions. just saying "i was manipulated by someone to be under their control" does not absolve them of that fact