Is “ Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” correct?

[Darat]

In another thread there is a discussion following the murder* of a customer at a restaurant who it is claimed was using racist insults at the employee. The employee apparently punched the customer who fell down and hit their head and died from that injury. (*using murder colloquially as any form of unlawful killing.)

Several people have used the argument that is summed up in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” and hold that the physical action of speech should be treated differently to other physical actions such as a punch, and they carry it on to a conclusion that you can only use a physical action such as punch in retaliation for being punched/hit and so on. That at no time can someone retaliate with a punch to someone’s speech.

For those that believe there is truth in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”:

Why do you think - as one example - some children try to kill themselves and some do manage to kill themselves after being subjected to “names will never hurt me” aka bullying?

Why should an action like speech be treated as a special kind of action?

Are there any circumstances where speech can be “retorted” (morally if not legally) with a punch?

Not interested in making this personal - so the “Oh you are fine if a Nazi is hit but not if you are hit for being a commie!” and other non-productive discussions about each other so please lets keep this to being an interesting discussion!

 

[angrysoba]

I think it is pretty clear that name-calling and branding people with a particular label is often designed to stigmatize. Pushing someone out of society is clearly harmful.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Doesn't work and never did.

And I did work with many bairns who'd been verbally bullied into depression, anxiety, school refusal and suicidal thoughts and behaviour and a lot of schools which did nowhere near enough to stamp out bullying. I naiively hope things have improved since I retired, but, given how much school support services had been hacked to ribbons by the coalition government, I doubt it has.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think it is pretty clear that name-calling and branding people with a particular label is often designed to stigmatize. Pushing someone out of society is clearly harmful.

Strongly disagree. The neutral state is no human connection and no personal connection has a promise of continuation. It isn't harm to voluntarily withdraw your connection.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In another thread there is a discussion following the murder* of a customer at a restaurant who it is claimed was using racists insults at the employee. The employee apparently punched the customer who fell down and hit their head and died from that injury. (*using murder colloquially as any form of unlawful killing.)

Several people have used the argument that is summed up in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” and hold that the physical action of speech should be treated differently to other physical actions such as a punch, and they carry it on to a conclusion that you can only use a physical action such as punch in retaliation for being punched/hit and so on. That at no time can someone retaliate with a punch to someone’s speech.

For those that believe there is truth in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”:

Why do you think - as one example - some children try to kill themselves and some do manage to kill themselves after being subjected to “names will never hurt me” aka bullying?

Why should an action like speech be treated as a special kind of action?

Are there any circumstances where speech can be “retorted” (morally if not legally) with a punch?

Not interested in making this personal - so the “Oh you are fine if a Nazi is hit but not if you are hit for being a commie!” and other non-productive discussions about each other so please lets keep this to being an interesting discussion!

Clearly words can do harm and in some cases moreso than being punched in the face. That seems pretty indisputable.

Of course there is some value to saying 'don't react violently to being insulted' but to be consistent you should also say 'don't react violently to being punched' ... there really isn't any justification for saying that it is ok to react violently to others violence but not words.

Of course part of the problem is that we have these BS sayings drilled into us as kids and they stick even though they have no basis in reality and are probably contradicted by something else that is drilled into us on another day or by someone else.

This one is particularly insidious though because it tells the victim that their feelings and reactions are invalid.

 

[Thermal]

Worrying about the name calling is to miss the point. People can bully with name calling, more subtle use of language, or simply a look or physical position. It's not the messanger; it's the power and intent backing it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If the "sticks and stones" thing we're true then we wouldn't have laws against libel.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If the "sticks and stones" thing we're true then we wouldn't have laws against libel.

Spot on.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If the "sticks and stones" thing we're true then we wouldn't have laws against libel.

Some of us don't think libel laws comply with the first amendment.

 

[Mumbles]

Are there any circumstances where speech can be “retorted” (morally if not legally) with a punch?

Easy example of where it's perfectly fine - when the "speech" is a threat. "I'm gonna kick your ass!" and the like, when the person has simply walked up and done so for no reason. Now, what exactly counts as a threat will ary by the listener - I consider a random white person calling me a racial slur to be immediately dangerous, but apparently some white folks don't want to understand why.

Understandable - when person A is repeatedly signaling "hey, back down, leave me alone please", and person B repeatedly refuses to do so. I linked to this hilarious example in another thread. People who do this are showing that they are aggressive and refuse to respect boundaries - it's not an explicit threat, but it is definitely an implied one. Personally, I don't recommend hitting for *legal* reasons, but I see no ethical issue. As the guy in the video says after the beating, "I asked you not to call me a ******."

 

[Matthew Best]

Some of us don't think libel laws comply with the first amendment.

Some of us don't have a first amendment.

 

[Thermal]

If the "sticks and stones" thing we're true then we wouldn't have laws against libel.

IIRC, to claim libel(or slander) you have to demonstrate damages. Otherwise it's just sticks-and-stones name-calling.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think there is a key difference, which is that no singular word is going to kill someone, whereas a single punch certainly can. For words to get to someone enough it usually has to be sustained, and/or part of the culture, and/or referring back to some traumatic past. If you call someone a name once and you're the only person ever to have done so, then it's unlikely to affect them. If you call someone a name every single day, and you're not the only person to do so, and society as a whole tells your victim that they just need to toughen up and get over it, snowflake, then the possibility that you'll drive them to suicide does exist. And even if not you'll likely erode their self-esteem, and thereby lower their quality of life, even dramatically.

But that doesn't make words less important. In fact, it's the fact that they are lesser in impact than something more physical that allows people to dismiss them as unimportant, and it's this that allows their perniciousness. That's why it's easy for people to mock "woke" language*, and why it's okay for people on this forum to have racist avatars, and to express bigoted viewpoints in bigoted ways, even as it's against the rules to make threats of physical violence.

To make an analogy, being physically hit is seen as being bitten by a snake - dangerous and potentially lethal. Being verbally abused is seen as someone without an allergy being stung by a bee - unpleasant, but nowhere near as serious. And what people overlook is that that bee-sting is rarely in isolation, and that being stung by a thousand bees can be just as dangerous as being bitten by a snake.

So, no, they're not the same. But those differences mean that being verbally abused can be both better and worse than being physically hit.

*And, before the term "woke" was coined, "PC gone MAD!", and so on back in time.

 

[Ian Osborne]

IIRC, to claim libel(or slander) you have to demonstrate damages. Otherwise it's just sticks-and-stones name-calling.

Yes, but it's damage to your reputation, not financial or physical damage.

 

[Planigale]

In another thread there is a discussion following the murder* of a customer at a restaurant who it is claimed was using racist insults at the employee. The employee apparently punched the customer who fell down and hit their head and died from that injury. (*using murder colloquially as any form of unlawful killing.)

Several people have used the argument that is summed up in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” and hold that the physical action of speech should be treated differently to other physical actions such as a punch, and they carry it on to a conclusion that you can only use a physical action such as punch in retaliation for being punched/hit and so on. That at no time can someone retaliate with a punch to someone’s speech.

For those that believe there is truth in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”:

Why do you think - as one example - some children try to kill themselves and some do manage to kill themselves after being subjected to “names will never hurt me” aka bullying?

Why should an action like speech be treated as a special kind of action?

Are there any circumstances where speech can be “retorted” (morally if not legally) with a punch?

Not interested in making this personal - so the “Oh you are fine if a Nazi is hit but not if you are hit for being a commie!” and other non-productive discussions about each other so please lets keep this to being an interesting discussion!

I wonder whether this partly relates to the US attitude of 'stand your ground' doctrine, certainly in the UK an adult is expected to de-escalate, back off rather than standing one's ground.

I am sure that there are moral cases when one can respond to words violently. I think particularly where there is a threat of violence to yourself or others. I have no doubt there are many situations in which a red blooded man would respond to words with violence, particularly where alcohol is consumed, indeed one does not even have to speak, just looking at someone the wrong way can be sufficient to get a kicking when out on a Friday night in Newcastle, or wearing the wrong colours in Glasgow.

In the case discussed there was never any suggestion the elderly victim was a physical threat. By and large physical violence is very likely to do permanent or long lasting damage that words would not. In the case of on line bullying it is not a single encounter that results in suicide but the incessant and continued nature often by a gang.

It has been accepted as a legitimate defence to murder in e.g. a marriage that continued verbal bullying by one partner can eventually reach a level justifying a physical assault, but I think we are discussing a single encounter.

So in a single encounter where the verbal aggressor is of no physical threat, can words be of sufficient provocation to justify a physical assault? The problem here is we have documented cases where someone has said something that sounds like the N word in another language that has a completely different meaning being taken as sufficient provocation to hit someone. Some people may (particularly if elderly) have health issues that may result in them saying things unintentionally e.g. Tourettes, hypoglycaemia, some types of stroke. So I think you have to accept the risk if you physically respond that the onus of proof is on you to prove provocation not merely to claim it. I do not think this can be a he said / she said issue. This is a he hit / she did not, so he is guilty unless he can prove otherwise.

In general in these issues it always seems to be a large strong man who is responding to someone smaller and weaker with a physical response. He does it because he knows he can get away with it, that the person attacked will be of no real threat. Because he can beat the guy in to submission. Rarely do we see the traditional 'Come outside and say that again', instead as in the 'hilarious' (NOT!) video above the attacker gives no warning, hits the individual with a tin can then continues to hit him in the face.

If the provocation is sufficient to justify hitting then is it sufficient to justify stabbing or shooting? what is the allowable amount of violence to a verbal provocation?

So morally and legally I think there is never sufficient provocation in a one off verbal encounter with a stranger where there is not a direct physical threat of violence to justify escalating to physical violence whether with fists, an available blunt object, a sharp or bladed object or a firearm.

I think that violence will not educate people into better behaviour in future.

 

[Mojo]

IIRC, to claim libel(or slander) you have to demonstrate damages. Otherwise it's just sticks-and-stones name-calling.

Yes, but it's damage to your reputation, not financial or physical damage.

In the UK, financial loss has to be demonstrated for slander, but for libel (i.e. published defamation) mere damage to reputation is sufficient.

But insults or “vulgar abuse” are not actionable in any case.

 

[Meadmaker]

Directly to the OP.

There's a lot in there, along with some unstated assumptions, and it might be hard to unwrap.

First, I don't think that anyone would say that speech can never be harmful, psychologically.

On the other hand, let's think about the "Sticks and stones" saying. How is it used, or at least how was it used in the not so distant past. (i.e. in my youth, which seems more and more distant in a number of ways lately, but I digress.)

It was basically a polite variation on "Go to Hell." It was a way of telling the verbal bully, "I am not taking you seriously." It was a statement of power. When used as advice from an adult to a youth, which was probably the most common place it was used, it was the adult saying, "When some jerk starts calling you names, tell them to buzz off, or just ignore them. "

It's good advice in darned near every circumstance. It's not advice that everyone has the ability to follow in every circumstance. Words can indeed hurt, and depending on circumstances you might not have the inner strength to brush it off.

So, what's the alternative? Respond with violence?

I think about how that might apply in real life. In my youth, there was a fellow in our junior high school (age roughly 12-13) name Big Ed Davis. Big Ed would regularly verbally abuse people. Sometimes, the people he would abuse would decide they had had enough. Fighting was of course not allowed, but everyone knew what was meant when someone said, "Let's talk about that after school!" I can remember several times when a crowd of kids were present watching Big Ed and whoever was standing up to Big Ed duking it out at a relatively concealed spot near the school.

The result was always the same. The other kid would get a black eye or bloody nose. Big Ed always won.

So it is everywhere when violence is allowed in response to verbal harassment. Basically, the strong have a green light to harass the weak. Yes, anyone could harass Big Ed, but they would get punched in the nose if they tried it. And Big Ed could harass anyone, and they would get punched in the nose if they objected.

We could go back to a society where dueling was allowed. That was really a thing a couple of hundred years ago. If someone said something that sullied your honor, you could kill him, as part of a fair fight. Of course, he could kill you, too. That's what made the fight fair. The consequence was that your ability to verbally harass and insult someone was strongly correlated with your skill with a rapier. That was eventually outlawed, but a kind of non-lethal dueling, i.e. fistfights, and "Step outside and say that!" were still condoned in my youth. Since then, society has collectively said that was a bad idea, largely because of the phenomenon I mentioned. In practice, it allowed the strong to harass the weak, but not vice versa.

So, our current system of laws, in which physical reactions to verbal assaults are forbidden, seems much better to me. There are still an awful lot of controls on verbal harassment in institutional settings. Schools and workplaces all have policies limiting what you can say. It works out pretty well, and there aren't as many black eyes at school, and Big Ed Davis would still end up in detention.

One specific question from the OP was whether there is any speech that can be retorted with a punch, morally. I can't think of any, with the exception of speech that carried an implied threat. If threatened, I think there can be a sort of pre-emptive self defense that is both moral and legal.

 

[Klimax]

Ask goalkeeper Kolář about that and Kúdela on difference between words and elbows and fists. Then you can consider (in)justice in those two cases.

ETA:
https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/18/slav...after-rangers-kemar-roofe-collision-14269605/
I don't think I need to provide link for second. There's plenty of crap articles in British sites and papers.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think there is a key difference, which is that no singular word is going to kill someone, whereas a single punch certainly can. For words to get to someone enough it usually has to be sustained, and/or part of the culture, and/or referring back to some traumatic past. If you call someone a name once and you're the only person ever to have done so, then it's unlikely to affect them. If you call someone a name every single day, and you're not the only person to do so, and society as a whole tells your victim that they just need to toughen up and get over it, snowflake, then the possibility that you'll drive them to suicide does exist. And even if not you'll likely erode their self-esteem, and thereby lower their quality of life, even dramatically.

But that doesn't make words less important. In fact, it's the fact that they are lesser in impact than something more physical that allows people to dismiss them as unimportant, and it's this that allows their perniciousness. That's why it's easy for people to mock "woke" language*, and why it's okay for people on this forum to have racist avatars, and to express bigoted viewpoints in bigoted ways, even as it's against the rules to make threats of physical violence.

To make an analogy, being physically hit is seen as being bitten by a snake - dangerous and potentially lethal. Being verbally abused is seen as someone without an allergy being stung by a bee - unpleasant, but nowhere near as serious. And what people overlook is that that bee-sting is rarely in isolation, and that being stung by a thousand bees can be just as dangerous as being bitten by a snake.

So, no, they're not the same. But those differences mean that being verbally abused can be both better and worse than being physically hit.

*And, before the term "woke" was coined, "PC gone MAD!", and so on back in time.

Yeah I was going to chip in on your first paragraph but I think you made the point for me. While a single insult isn't going to kill someone you have no idea whether your insult is going to be the straw that broke the camels back just as you have no idea whether your punch is going to result in a shiner or the person dropping dead on the spot.

This daft old saying just comes from a time when people didn't really appreciate the ideas of psychological abuse and harm.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, but it's damage to your reputation, not financial or physical damage.

Haven't looked into it all but I wonder what the legal situation would be if your slander or libel resulted in the person committing suicide. Would there be a manslaughter charge? Would the estate be able to claim substantial damages?