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

[Venom]

Just out of interest, how do you measure privilege of what lot over the other?

Or does that not matter, and we just go with dudes and white people?

Measure? You can't.

But when an old white American shouts a word with some serious historical baggage that dehumanizes someone's entire demographic and when users of these words were relatively protected for more than a century from legal or social accountability, that is privilege in action.

And as for "white people", Western Europeans just happened to be the primary explorers and colonizers of North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc. If Qing China had dominated the world instead we might see a similar relationship with a Chinese majority in these regions today.

The point is that the majority group, however it is defined or structured, usually holds the cards, and egregious verbal abuse that reinforces these group dynamics can understandably lead to violence.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" is a nice thing to tell ourselves to build self control. But I don't EXPECT this to be true for everyone most people. Everyone has a different lived experience and a different combination of inherited traits and environmental exposure. And pretty much nobody can escape being part of a group that they identify with and would make sacrifices for.

 

[arthwollipot]

I see those as wars for power and resources. It's not the words that matter, it's the competing claims and the race to enforce one's own claim over one's competitors.

A claim is made in words. You can't claim resources without telling someone "this is mine, you can't have it".

Further, in the context of this thread, these are not wars started because someone said something hurtful. So they're definitely not examples of what we're talking about in this thread.

Do you have any examples at all of wars that were declared because someone said something mean? Or just more examples of wars that were declared over competing claims to resources?

Off the top of my head? Do you think that I somehow hold the causes of all wars in human history in my head so that I can rattle off an arbitrary one on demand? Be realistic, please.

But I agree that we are drifting far from the intent of the thread with this line of discussion, so if you prefer, I will rein it in, and reiterate my contention that yes, words can cause hurt. Words can cause lasting psychological damage. This is not to say that physical injury does not hurt or cause lasting damage, but the idea that names can never hurt me is false. Furthermore, though I personally cannot think of a situation where hurtful words alone might be capable of driving me to violence, it is absolutely certain that this cannot be said about everybody. Violence in response to words is an undeniable problem that society has to deal with. For the most part, I think it basically does. After all, we rarely see people engage in duels of honour any more, where that was once common.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Responses to emotions are things we can control. I haven't moved any goalposts because this thread is talking about a saying and whether the saying has any validity. Your position seems to be (and you can correct this if I'm wrong) that it doesn't have much validity because people can't control their emotions. My position is that it has some validity because people can control their emotions. We just seem to have different definitions about what "control their emotions," means. I would agree with you that we can't control the initial emotion that might rise up with certain words. No argument there. What we can control is everything that happens after that, which, IMO is what's important and what the aphorism is about.

Welcome to the English language! Idioms are often sloppy but we all know what we mean by them.
To this I would say that in most situations and for most people that don't have psychological or brain function issues, it is their fault if they act out inappropriately based solely on words they are told. It would be wrong for me to insult a patient who calls me an "idiot." It would be wrong for me to punch some white guy who calls me a "wetback." It would be equally wrong for me to let those words affect who I am and how I think of myself.

You are proposing a very narrow definition of "affect me," referring only to the initial sting of the words. I'm broadening that to, "change my behavior or self-image," which is the intent of the aphorism.

The saying is not about whether you should punch someone for calling you a name, so that's way off the mark. The saying is about dismissing the harm done by words as somehow not important and not like the 'real harm' of being punched. Therefore you shouldn't be bothered by words and if you are it's your own fault. Which is utter BS.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That response is wrong on, really only one level.

Edit to add, we can to a degree control our emotions and how words impact our well being. I do so on a regular basis. If other's can't maybe they should meditate on the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt he."

I find it rather bizarre that folks are saying otherwise, it's certainly contrary to my lived experience.

Then yet again I will ask you to confirm the process by which you consciously control your biochemistry. I've asked 3 people this now and so far nobody has attempted an answer.

 

[p0lka]

You stated what happened (or your best description of what happened) you didn't explain how you did it or how what you did was an effort of will rather than simply a happy accident.

Perhaps these things just don't bother you? That would say nothing about to what extent you choose to let it bother you or otherwise or indeed whether other people can achieve the same result. Do you agree?

I don't know what you mean by 'how' in this context?

At a young age I learnt the 'sticks and stone expression', it was absorbed by my impressionable mind. Until then names etc would bother me.

Now, instead of reacting emotionally to those situations, I think of the concepts behind the expression and choose not to react emotionally but get an internal grin instead.

You seem to be assuming there's conscious control of biochemistry.
I'm not consciously controlling biochemistry, I'm just following a line of thought and my biochemistry does what it does.

The 'how', is the line of thought that comes from the concept behind the 'sticks and stones' expression.

 

[Nessie]

I have never agreed with "sticks and stones". It is a bully's excuse, whereby the confident and articulate can be given free rein to make other people's lives a misery. Anyone who advocates "sticks and stones" soon folds when that is met with a barrage of name-calling and abuse and it is explained to them how even low level name-calling, especially when repeated over time can crush someone's self-worth and confidence.

 

[ahhell]

Then yet again I will ask you to confirm the process by which you consciously control your biochemistry. I've asked 3 people this now and so far nobody has attempted an answer.

Do you doubt that your thoughts can have an impact on your physiology? Is there a placebo effect? Via the complex interaction of my conscious thoughts and autonomic nerve system, hint, its not entirely autonomic.

I suppose, that if one is a fairly hard determinist, then we can't. I can understand that, I have those tendencies, I just don't see much good it does. So, if I don't have free will I can't help but believe that I do or don't or whatever.

I would recommend that you read a bit about cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, and stoicism. All three are somewhat convergent on this topic. It is mostly true that you can't change your immediate reaction to stimulus but most folks can, with practice, change their reaction after that first moment. As my father used to say, count ten before you respond.

I have never agreed with "sticks and stones". It is a bully's excuse, whereby the confident and articulate can be given free rein to make other people's lives a misery. Anyone who advocates "sticks and stones" soon folds when that is met with a barrage of name-calling and abuse and it is explained to them how even low level name-calling, especially when repeated over time can crush someone's self-worth and confidence.

That's just not true. I both condemn bullies and recommend that folks realize words aren't violence. It is just good advice to tell folks to try not and let jerks impact there mental state. Much like telling folks not to go down a dark alley alone late at night. Its not victim blaming, its not excusing muggers, its just good advice.

Of course its also the same thing the words hurt crowd is doing through out this thread. Going to the extreme case to defend the general proposition. I will ask again, would you rather a barrage of name-calling or a barrage of sticks and stones?

 

[xjx388]

The saying is not about whether you should punch someone for calling you a name, so that's way off the mark. The saying is about dismissing the harm done by words as somehow not important and not like the 'real harm' of being punched. Therefore you shouldn't be bothered by words and if you are it's your own fault. Which is utter BS.

The saying is about the difference between the harm caused by physical blows and the harm caused by words. I will agree that words can and do cause harm but there is a qualitative difference in harm. You can't decide not to have a cracked skull, but you can decide that you won't let words affect you.

And before you object: There is a qualitative difference between sustained verbal abuse by parents, spouses and severe cases of bullying vs merely being insulted by a peer or stranger. No argument there. Sustained verbal abuse, especially as a child, has quite obvious harmful effects. The saying is simplistic but it is clearly only applicable to schoolyard types of insults.

Some white guy on the street calling me a wetback doesn't hurt me, not long-term. Not really even much short-term. That same white guy punching me would hurt a lot more. I can choose to ignore and let that kind of idiotic insult go.

 

[theprestige]

A claim is made in words. You can't claim resources without telling someone "this is mine, you can't have it".

Off the top of my head? Do you think that I somehow hold the causes of all wars in human history in my head so that I can rattle off an arbitrary one on demand? Be realistic, please.

But I agree that we are drifting far from the intent of the thread with this line of discussion, so if you prefer, I will rein it in, and reiterate my contention that yes, words can cause hurt. Words can cause lasting psychological damage. This is not to say that physical injury does not hurt or cause lasting damage, but the idea that names can never hurt me is false. Furthermore, though I personally cannot think of a situation where hurtful words alone might be capable of driving me to violence, it is absolutely certain that this cannot be said about everybody. Violence in response to words is an undeniable problem that society has to deal with. For the most part, I think it basically does. After all, we rarely see people engage in duels of honour any more, where that was once common.

You're the one who brought up wars started over words, in the context of words being hurtful. So I think it's entirely reasonable to expect you to have an example of such a war. I think you should rein it in because you can't support it, not because it's drift. If you actually had an example, it wouldn't be drift at all.

Anyway, back to the thread title: Yes, I think it's correct. I think it's correct in the context of contrasting verbal abuse with physical violence. I think it's correct as a viewpoint to inculcate in children as part of their maturation and socialization process. And I think it's correct as a cultural value we should uphold as adults, both in our social interactions and in our laws.

Verbal abuse in and of itself is not the same as physical violence. It doesn't justify physical violence in response. That's what the aphorism is about.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Perhaps Darat is simply asking the banal question, is it literally true that verbal abuse isn't hurtful? But that's a boring question with an obvious (and boring answer). If we're not to consider the figure of speech as such, why even bother discussing it?

 

[Nessie]

......

That's just not true. I both condemn bullies and recommend that folks realize words aren't violence. It is just good advice to tell folks to try not and let jerks impact there mental state. Much like telling folks not to go down a dark alley alone late at night. Its not victim blaming, its not excusing muggers, its just good advice.

Of course its also the same thing the words hurt crowd is doing through out this thread. Going to the extreme case to defend the general proposition. I will ask again, would you rather a barrage of name-calling or a barrage of sticks and stones?

I am not talking about a brief exchange of words, I am talking about when it has developed into bullying. It is too easy to dismiss a victim of bullying with "sticks and stones". The other phrase I hated was "toughen up".

Most people would prefer an exchange of words, in the street, pub or at a football match. If it is like for like, so be it.

 

[ahhell]

You're the one who brought up wars started over words, in the context of words being hurtful. So I think it's entirely reasonable to expect you to have an example of such a war. I think you should rein it in because you can't support it, not because it's drift. If you actually had an example, it wouldn't be drift at all.

Anyway, back to the thread title: Yes, I think it's correct. I think it's correct in the context of contrasting verbal abuse with physical violence. I think it's correct as a viewpoint to inculcate in children as part of their maturation and socialization process. And I think it's correct as a cultural value we should uphold as adults, both in our social interactions and in our laws.

Verbal abuse in and of itself is not the same as physical violence. It doesn't justify physical violence in response. That's what the aphorism is about.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Perhaps Darat is simply asking the banal question, is it literally true that verbal abuse isn't hurtful? But that's a boring question with an obvious (and boring answer). If we're not to consider the figure of speech as such, why even bother discussing it?

Yep this. I guess it is true that "words will never hurt me." is not literally true, who cares. There does seem to be a common rhetorical trope these days in which someone does not understand or ignores metaphor and idiomatic meaning in favor of literal meaning and thinks they've said something useful.

 

[theprestige]

Yep this. I guess it is true that "words will never hurt me." is not literally true, who cares. There does seem to be a common rhetorical trope these days in which someone does not understand or ignores metaphor and idiomatic meaning in favor of literal meaning and thinks they've said something useful.

I think they have said something useful. As far as I can tell, this is essentially a continuation of the argument in favor of responding to unwelcome speech with physical violence. For those advancing that argument, a disingenuously literal approach to this proverb is quite useful. If anyone falls for it.

 

[Cain]

I'm a fan of the aphorism in play. It's often associated with dignity culture, itself associated with living in urban environments where people are largely anonymous (distinctly different than a school, workplace, or face-to-face community). It's also similar to the early days of the Internet where users could, and often did, say whatever came to mind. Social media alters the landscape because offenders can be identified, exposed, and punished.

I do take issue with activists who contend that not only are words a form of violence, but silence is violence. Everything is violence. I had a student ask if it's legal to punch someone for uttering a racial slur. Instead of walking away, he apparently wants to stand his ground.

There was a law student who said she experienced heart palpitations because her exam featured a word that started with an 'n' followed by five asterisks. Assuming this isn't like flopping in the NBA, if it's real, if symbols or soundwaves without malicious intent genuinely cause physical harm, then the injured party needs help, especially since they might be contagious.

When it's verboten to clinically use a word (such as ******), we infantilize adults -- thereby disempowering them. Which universe would you prefer to reside in: one where the n-word had no effect, or one where any non-Black person who said it would instantly feel pain? I'm sure many would suspect they're getting low-balled and ask, "How much pain?"

John McWhorter and Glenn Loury talked about Black people who "fall to pieces" at the sound of the word:

 

[arthwollipot]

You're the one who brought up wars started over words, in the context of words being hurtful. So I think it's entirely reasonable to expect you to have an example of such a war. I think you should rein it in because you can't support it, not because it's drift. If you actually had an example, it wouldn't be drift at all.

I gave you examples. You dismissed them. That's okay - I understand your reasoning even if I don't agree with it.

Anyway, back to the thread title: Yes, I think it's correct. I think it's correct in the context of contrasting verbal abuse with physical violence. I think it's correct as a viewpoint to inculcate in children as part of their maturation and socialization process. And I think it's correct as a cultural value we should uphold as adults, both in our social interactions and in our laws.

Verbal abuse in and of itself is not the same as physical violence. It doesn't justify physical violence in response. That's what the aphorism is about.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Almost all of it, as I have stated clearly already, giving examples from my own lived experience. You also dismissed that.

Perhaps Darat is simply asking the banal question, is it literally true that verbal abuse isn't hurtful? But that's a boring question with an obvious (and boring answer). If we're not to consider the figure of speech as such, why even bother discussing it?

I've also given my answer to the question that you have asked - the non-boring one. You... can you guess?.. dismissed that too.

 

[p0lka]

Then yet again I will ask you to confirm the process by which you consciously control your biochemistry. I've asked 3 people this now and so far nobody has attempted an answer.

You have had some answers, what's your opinion?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Especially in the context of recent discussions here. These discussions are not about whether it's okay or excusable to verbally abuse someone. They're about whether it's okay or excusable to use violence to suppress unwanted speech.

Well said and on the nose.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then rather than asserting it over and over again kindly explain by what method humans consciously determine whether or not they experience an emotion.

I think you are going to struggle with that one.

Humans do learn to manage their emotional responses, in addition to the actions they take as a result of those responses. This is pretty clear and obvious... otherwise we'd all still throw temper tantrums when we don't get fed on time.

Seriously, if people were unable to learn to mitigate and change their emotional responses, there'd be a LOT of dead spouses who just kept leaving their undergarments in the wrong place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That people do lose control does mean that people don't have full control over their emotions.

I think you may be being too gracious. A lot of people don't truly lose control... but they use a strong emotional response as a rationalized justification for behaving in ways that they know are inappropriate.

I'll grant that in some cases, a person's emotionally-prompted instinct can override their conscious mind. But I think it's actually quite rare. 99% of the time "oh, I just lost control and punched you in the nose" isn't an acceptable explanation, it's a flimsy excuse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That isn't what you asked for. You asked for an example of wars being fought over words. I gave you the Protestant Reformation and all of the conflicts that it led to. You said nothing about self defense or verbal abuse.

If you want an example of a war being fought directly because someone said something, then I give you every war of succession ever. "I name my firstborn son my heir even though he is a bastard" is a set of words (paraphrased, obviously) that has led directly to war on more than one occasion. "I do" is another set of words that I'm pretty sure has led to war. "This land is mine; God gave this land to me" has also been pretty contentious.

You're conflating the words said with the actions taken after those words were uttered. They're not the same.

Ferinstance... I can walk into Paraguay and holler "this land is mine" all I want. It means nothing. It's the act of physically displacing, oppressing, evicting, and mistreating the residents of that place that lead to the war, not some hairbrained idiot mouthing off about how the land is theirs because god told them so.

Similarly, wars of succession aren't fought solely because of the words uttered by the prior royalty. They're fought because of the actual real granting of power and authority that come with the position, and because someone else wanted that power for themselves.

Just because people say words doesn't actually make the words the cause of the altercation.

I could have a great time sending PMs to members here, telling them they've been suspended for whatever the hell reason I want. It amounts to naught. It's the actual real suspensions that make a difference. And since I have no ability to actually suspend anyone... all of my PMs would be nothing more than laughable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The saying is not about whether you should punch someone for calling you a name,

Actually, that's almost exactly what the aphorism is about. It's also an admonition to learn to control one's degree of emotional response, and learn to let things go.

so that's way off the mark. The saying is about dismissing the harm done by words as somehow not important and not like the 'real harm' of being punched. Therefore you shouldn't be bothered by words and if you are it's your own fault. Which is utter BS.

No, that's not really what it's about... and even if it were, it's not complete BS.

Here's a bit of a challenge for you. Some people on ISF are very free with veiled accusations and insinuations that - by your own view expressed here - would be *expected* to cause the recipient meaningful harm and emotional trauma. By your own expressed view, that harm is comparable in nature to physical harm.

Wouldn't that then imply, by your own reasoning, that the person who is accusing or insinuating offensive things about a fellow poster is intentionally and purposefully trying to hurt and harm another person?

Where does that leave you, when you're the person implying that a fellow poster is irredeemably evil?